Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes of open lobectomy (OL), video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (VATS) and robotic-assisted lobectomy (RL). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Robotic-assisted lobectomy has seen increasing adoption for treatment of early-stage lung cancer. Comparative data regarding these approaches is largely from single-institution case series or administrative datasets. METHODS:Retrospective data was collected from 21 institutions from 2013-2019. All consecutive cases performed for clinical stage IA-IIIA lung cancer were included. Neoadjuvant cases were excluded. Propensity-score matching (1:1) was based on age, gender, race, smoking-status, FEV1%, Zubrod score, ASA score, tumor size and clinical T and N stage. RESULTS:A total of 2,391 RL, 2,174 VATS, and 1,156 OL cases were included. After propensity-score matching there were 885 pairs of RL vs. OL, 1,711 pairs of RL vs. VATS, and 952 pairs of VATS vs. OL. Operative time for RL was shorter than VATS (p < 0.0001) and OL (p = 0.0004). Compared to OL, RL and VATS had less overall postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay (LOS), and lower transfusion rates (all p < 0.02). Compared to VATS, RL had lower conversion rate (p < 0.0001), shorter hospital stay (p < 0.0001) and a lower postoperative transfusion rate (p = 0.01). RL and VATS cohorts had comparable postoperative complication rates. In-hospital mortality was comparable between all groups. CONCLUSIONS:RL and VATS approaches were associated with favorable perioperative outcomes compared to OL. Robotic-assisted lobectomy was also associated with a reduced length of stay and decreased conversion rate when compared to VATS.

Solitary fibrous tumors (SFTs) are rare mesenchymal pleural neoplasms with an overall good prognosis and low recurrence rate if completely resected and if degree of differentiation is favorable. Within the last decade, advances in research have led to more reliable methods of differentiating SFTs from other soft tissue tumors. Historically, several markers were used to distinguish SFTs from similar tumors, but these markers had poor specificity. Recent evidence showed NAB2-STAT6 fusion gene to be a distinct feature of SFTs with 100% specificity and sensitivity. Surgical resection, with an emphasis on obtaining negative margins, is the mainstay of treatment for SFTs. Preoperative planning with detailed imaging is imperative to delineate the extent of disease and vascular supply. One important radiologic distinction to aid delineation of a pleural-based tumor compared to a pulmonary parenchymal-based tumor is the angle that the tumor forms with the chest wall, which is obtuse for a pleural-based tumor, and acute for tumors of the lung parenchyma. Often, preoperative tissue diagnosis is not available, and surgery is both diagnostic and curative. Intraoperatively, emphasis should be on complete resection with negative margins. SFTs are resected via several approaches: thoracotomy, sternotomy with the option of hemi-clamshell extension, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, and robotic approach, which is increasingly being used and is our preference. We recommend a minimally invasive approach for most lesions, and have resected SFTs of the pleura that are up to 12 cm with the robotic approach. However, the current literature often cites 5 cm as the cut off for an open thoracotomy. Nevertheless, even with larger tumors, a minimally invasive robotic approach is our preference and practice. For giant SFTs (> 20 cm), an open approach may be preferable. Multiple thoracotomies and rib resection may be required to gain adequate exposure and ensure complete resection in these tumors. However, it is noteworthy that most of these tumors have a soft consistency and thus, once bagged, can easily be removed minimally invasively, and thus minimally invasive approach should not be completely ruled out. Recurrence in SFTs usually results from incomplete resection and redo surgery may portend a favorable prognosis.

Objective: Chest tubes are frequently placed after thymectomy, without data to support this common practice. We report our experience in eliminating them after robotic thymectomy. Methods: This is a retrospective database review of patients who underwent robotic thymectomy performed by a single surgeon in which intraoperative chest tube insertion was not planned. Patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes are presented. Results: Between January 2018 and October 2022, 75 patients underwent robotic thymectomy performed by a single surgeon. Of those, 64 (85.3%) underwent a left-sided thoracic approach. The most common indication for resection was a suspicious anterior mediastinal mass. There were no conversions to an open operation. The median operative time was 72 minutes (range, 38-164 minutes), and the median estimated blood loss was 20 cc (range, 10-60 cc). Ten patients (13.3%) went home on the day of surgery, and all others (86.7%) were discharged on postoperative day 1. A chest tube was placed in 1 patient at time of closure because of a persistent air leak after extensive adhesiolysis from a prior thoracotomy; the tube was removed on the day of surgery after resolution of the air leak. No other patient required chest tube placement intraoperatively, immediately postoperatively, or within 60 days postoperation. Two patients underwent outpatient thoracentesis within 1 month postoperation for effusions. There were no 30- or 90-day mortality and no major morbidities. Conclusions: A chest tube after robotic thymectomy is not necessary in almost all patients and can be safely omitted. The dogmatic routine practice of chest tube placement should be questioned.

BACKGROUND:The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine if enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) would improve outcomes for three-stage minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). METHODS:Patients with esophageal cancer undergoing MIE between March 2016 and August 2018 were consecutively enrolled, and were randomly divided into 2 groups: ERAS+group that received a guideline-based ERAS protocol, and ERAS- group that received standard care. The primary endpoint was morbidity after MIE. The secondary endpoints were the length of stay (LOS) and time to ambulation after the surgery. The perioperative results including the Surgical Apgar Score (SAS) and Visualized Analgesia Score (VAS) were also collected and compared. RESULTS:A total of 60 patients in the ERAS+ group and 58 patients in the ERAS- group were included. Postoperatively, lower morbidity and pulmonary complication rate were recorded in the ERAS+ group (33.3% vs. 51.7%; p = 0.04, 16.7% vs. 32.8%; p = 0.04), while the incidence of anastomotic leakage remained comparable (11.7% vs. 15.5%; p = 0.54). There was an earlier ambulation (3 [2-3] days vs. 3 [3-4] days, p = 0.001), but comparable LOS (10 [9-11.25] days vs. 10 [9-13] days; p = 0.165) recorded in ERAS+ group. The ERAS protocol led to close scores in both SAS (7.80 ± 1.03 vs. 8.07 ± 0.89, p = 0.21) and VAS (1.74 ± 0.85 vs. 1.78 ± 1.06, p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS:Implementation of an ERAS protocol for patients undergoing MIE resulted in earlier ambulation and lower pulmonary complications, without a change in anastomotic leakage or length of hospital stay. Further studies on minimizing leakage should be addressed in ERAS for MIE.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The Thoraguard Surgical Drainage System is a novel device for drainage of air and fluid after cardiothoracic surgery. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A three-part study was conducted: a prospective observational safety and feasibility study, a retrospective comparison of patients managed with an analogue drainage system, and a clinician user-feedback survey. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:2.8 days (IQR 1-3) (P=0.004). Compared to an analogue system, the Thoraguard system had superior user-reported ability to detect air-leaks (17/23, 74%), better ease of patient ambulation (14/23, 61%), and better display of clinically relevant information (22/23, 96%). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:The Thoraguard Surgical Drainage System provides safe and effective drainage post pulmonary resection. Compared to an analogue system, the Thoraguard system detected a higher number of air leaks and was associated with decreased chest tube duration and hospital length of stay. User survey data reported superior air leak detection, display of clinical data, and ease of use of the Thoraguard system.