Faculty Bibliography

Robotic thymectomy is an increasingly used modality. Patients who are candidates for traditional, open thymectomy are typically also candidates for robotic thymectomy, with the exception of patients with invasion of great vessels. Knowledge of and training on the robotic platform is critical for success. Patient and port positioning is described. Critical steps during robotic thymectomy include attention to careful division of the thymus off the innominate vein, and complete retrieval of bilateral superior horns of the gland. Robotic thymectomy may be performed with excellent perioperative and long-term outcomes for both neoplastic and non-neoplastic indications.

Robotic esophagectomy is an increasingly used modality. Patients who are candidates for traditional, open esophagectomy are typically also candidates for robotic esophagectomy. Knowledge of and training on the robotic platform is critical for success. Patient and port positioning is described. Either a hand-sewn or stapled intrathoracic anastomosis may be performed. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) appears to be associated with decreased respiratory complications versus open esophagectomy. Robotic esophagectomy may be performed with excellent perioperative outcomes, though long-term oncologic data regarding the operation are not yet available.

BACKGROUND: Data from selected centers show that robotic lobectomy is safe and effective and has 30-day mortality comparable to that of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). However, widespread adoption of robotic lobectomy is controversial. We used The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery (STS-GTS) Database to evaluate quality metrics for these 2 minimally invasive lobectomy techniques. METHODS: A database query for primary clinical stage I or stage II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at high-volume centers from 2009 to 2013 identified 1,220 robotic lobectomies and 12,378 VATS procedures. Quality metrics evaluated included operative morbidity, 30-day mortality, and nodal upstaging, defined as cN0 to pN1. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate nodal upstaging. RESULTS: Patients undergoing robotic lobectomy were older, less active, and less likely to be an ever smoker and had higher body mass index (BMI) (all p < 0.05). They were also more likely to have coronary heart disease or hypertension (all p < 0.001) and to have had preoperative mediastinal staging (p < 0.0001). Robotic lobectomy operative times were longer (median 186 versus 173 minutes; p < 0.001); all other operative measurements were similar. All postoperative outcomes were similar, including complications and 30-day mortality (robotic lobectomy, 0.6% versus VATS, 0.8%; p = 0.4). Median length of stay was 4 days for both, but a higher proportion of patients undergoing robotic lobectomy had hospital stays less than 4 days (48% versus 39%; p < 0.001). Nodal upstaging overall was similar (p = 0.6) but with trends favoring VATS in the cT1b group and robotic lobectomy in the cT2a group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing robotic lobectomy had more comorbidities and robotic lobectomy operative times were longer, but quality outcome measures, including complications, hospital stay, 30-day mortality, and nodal upstaging, suggest that robotic lobectomy and VATS are equivalent.

Robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy can be considered for patients able to tolerate conventional lobectomy. Contraindications to resection via thoracotomy apply to patients undergoing robotic lobectomy. Team training, familiarity with equipment, troubleshooting, and preparation are critical for successful robotic lobectomy. Robotic lobectomy is associated with decreased rates of blood loss, blood transfusion, air leak, chest tube duration, length of stay, and mortality compared with thoracotomy. Robotic lobectomy offers many of the same benefits in perioperative morbidity and mortality, and additional advantages in optics, dexterity, and surgeon ergonomics as video-assisted thoracic lobectomy. Long-term oncologic efficacy and cost implications remain areas of study.

BACKGROUND: Our objective is to report our incidence, results, and technique for the control of major vascular injuries during minimally invasive robotic thoracic surgery. METHODS: This is a consecutive series of patients who underwent a planned robotic thoracic operation by one surgeon. RESULTS: Between February 2009 and September 2015, 1,304 consecutive patients underwent a robotic operation (lobectomy, n = 502; segmentectomy, n = 130; mediastinal resection, n = 115; Ivor Lewis, n = 103; thymectomy, n = 97; and others, n = 357) by one surgeon. Conversion to thoracotomy occurred in 61 patients (4.7%) and in 14 patients (1.1%) for bleeding (pulmonary artery, n = 13). The incidence of major vascular injury during anatomic pulmonary resection was 2.4% (15 of 632). Of these, 13 patients required thoracotomy performed in a nonurgent manner while the injury was displayed on a monitor, 2 had the vessel repaired minimally invasively, 2 required blood transfusion (0.15%), and 1 patient had 30-day mortality (0.16%). Techniques used to minimize morbidity include having a sponge available during vessel dissection and stapling, applying immediate pressure, delaying the opening until the bleeding is controlled without external pressure, and ensuring there is no bleeding while the chest is opened. CONCLUSIONS: Major vascular injuries can be safely managed during minimally invasive robotic surgery. Our evolving technique features initial packing of the bleeding for several minutes, maintaining calmness to provide time to prepare for thoracotomy, and reexamination of the injured vessel. If repair is not possible minimally invasively, the vessel is repacked and a nonhurried, elective thoracotomy is performed while the injury is displayed on a monitor to ensure active bleeding is not occurring.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy with intrathoracic dissection and anastomosis is increasingly performed. Our objectives are to report our operative technique, early results and lessons learned. This is a retrospective review of 85 consecutive patients who were scheduled for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (laparoscopic or robotic abdominal and robotic chest) for esophageal cancer. Between 4/2011 and 3/2015, 85 (74 men, median age: 63) patients underwent robotic Ivor Lewis esophageal resection. In all, 64 patients (75%) had preoperative chemoradiotherapy, 99% had esophageal cancer, and 99% had an R0 resection. There were no abdominal or thoracic conversions for bleeding. There was 1 abdominal conversion for the inability to completely staple the gastric conduit. The mean operative time was 6 hours, median blood loss was 35ml (no intraoperative transfusions), median number of resected lymph nodes was 22, and median length of stay was 8 days. Conduit complications (anastomotic leak or conduit ischemia) occurred in 6 patients. The 30 and 90-day mortality were 3/85 (3.5%) and 9/85 (10.6%), respectively. Initial poor results led to protocol changes via root cause analysis: longer rehabilitation before surgery, liver biopsy in patients with history of suspected cirrhosis, and refinements to conduit preparation and anastomotic technique. Robotic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer provides an R0 resection with excellent lymph node resection. Our preferred port placement and operative techniques are described. Disappointingly high thoracic conduit problems and 30 and 90-day mortality led to lessons learned and implementation of change which are shared.