Faculty Bibliography

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.

BACKGROUND:Our objective was to report the incidence, management, and outcomes of patients who developed a secondary pneumothorax while admitted for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS:A single-institution, retrospective review of patients admitted for COVID-19 with a diagnosis of pneumothorax between March 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020, was performed. The primary assessment was the incidence of pneumothorax. Secondarily, we analyzed clinical outcomes of patients requiring tube thoracostomy, including those requiring operative intervention. RESULTS:From March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2020, 118 of 1595 patients (7.4%) admitted for COVID-19 developed a pneumothorax. Of these, 92 (5.8%) required tube thoracostomy drainage for a median of 12 days (interquartile range 5-25 days). The majority of patients (95 of 118, 80.5%) were on mechanical ventilation at the time of pneumothorax, 17 (14.4%) were iatrogenic, and 25 patients (21.2%) demonstrated tension physiology. Placement of a large-bore chest tube (20 F or greater) was associated with fewer tube-related complications than a small-bore tube (14 F or less) (14 vs 26 events, P = .011). Six patients with pneumothorax (5.1%) required operative management for a persistent alveolar-pleural fistula. In patients with pneumothorax, median hospital stay was 36 days (interquartile range 20-63 days) and in-hospital mortality was significantly higher than for those without pneumothorax (58% vs 13%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:The incidence of secondary pneumothorax in patients admitted for COVID-19 is 7.4%, most commonly occurring in patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and is associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 58%. Placement of large-bore chest tubes is associated with fewer complications than small-bore tubes.

BACKGROUND:Conversion rates during minimally invasive surgery are generally examined in the limited scope of a particular procedure. However, for a hospital or payor, the cumulative impact of conversions during commonly performed procedures could have a much larger negative effect than what is appreciated by individual surgeons. The aim of this study is to assess open conversion rates during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) across common procedures using laparoscopic/thoracoscopic (LAP/VATS) and robotic-assisted (RAS) approaches. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study using the Premier Database on patients who underwent common operations (hysterectomy, lobectomy, right colectomy, benign sigmoidectomy, low anterior resection, inguinal and ventral hernia repair, and partial nephrectomy) between January 2013 and September 2015. ICD-9 and CPT codes were used to define procedures, modality, and conversion. Propensity scores were calculated using patient, hospital, and surgeon characteristics. Propensity-score matched analysis was used to compare conversions between LAP/VATS and RAS for each procedure. RESULTS:A total of 278,520 patients had MIS approaches of the ten operations. Conversion occurred in 5% of patients and was associated with a 1.77 day incremental increase in length of stay and $3441 incremental increase in cost. RAS was associated with a 58.5% lower rate of conversion to open surgery compared to LAP/VATS. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:At a health system or payer level, conversion to open is detrimental not just for the patient and surgeon but also puts a significant strain on hospital resources. Use of RAS was associated with less than half of the conversion rate observed for LAP/VATS.

BACKGROUND:Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. Venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used in patients in whom conventional mechanical ventilatory support has failed. To date, published data have focused on survival from ECMO and survival to discharge. In addition to survival to discharge, this study reports 1-year follow-up data for patients who were successfully discharged from the hospital. METHODS:A single-institution, retrospective review of all patients with severe COVID-19 who were cannulated for VV-ECMO between March 10, 2020 and May 1, 2020 was performed. A multidisciplinary ECMO team evaluated, selected, and managed patients with ECMO support. The primary outcome of this study was survival to discharge. Available 1-year follow-up data are also reported. RESULTS:A total of 30 patients were supported with VV-ECMO, and 27 patients (90%) survived to discharge. All patients were discharged home or to acute rehabilitation on room air, except for 1 patient (3.7%), who required supplemental oxygen therapy. At a median follow-up of 10.8 months (interquartile range [IQR], 8.9-14.4 months) since ECMO cannulation, survival was 86.7%, including 1 patient who underwent lung transplantation. Of the patients discharged from the hospital, 44.4% (12/27) had pulmonary function testing, with a median percent predicted forced expiratory volume of 100% (IQR, 91%-110%). For survivors, a 6-minute walk test was performed in 59.3% (16/27), with a median value of 350 m (IQR, 286-379 m). CONCLUSIONS:A well-defined patient selection and management strategy of VV-ECMO support in patients with severe COVID-19 resulted in exceptional survival to discharge that was sustained at 1-year after ECMO cannulation.

BACKGROUND:Our objective is to assess the feasibility and safety of discharging patients by postoperative day one (POD1) after robotic segmentectomy and lobectomy, and to describe outcomes for patients. METHODS:A retrospective analysis was made of a prospectively collected database of a quality improvement initiative by a single surgeon. Factors associated with discharge by POD1 were evaluated using a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS:From January 2018 to July 2020, of 253 patients who underwent robotic anatomic pulmonary resection, 134 (53%) were discharged by POD1, 67% after segmentectomy and 41% after lobectomy. Discharge by POD1 improved with experience and was achieved in 97% of patients after segmentectomy and 68% after lobectomy in the final quartile. Thirty-one patients (12%) were discharged home with a chest tube, including 7 (2.8%) on POD1. On multivariate analysis, never smokers and segmentectomy were associated with discharge by POD1. Conversely, decreased baseline performance status and perioperative complications were associated with discharge after POD1. There were 10 minor morbidities (4%), 6 major morbidities (2.4%), and no 30- or 90-day mortality. There were 4 readmissions (1.6%), of which 1 (0.4%) was after POD1 discharge. Patient satisfaction remained high throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS:With experience and communication, select patients can be discharged home on POD1 after robotic segmentectomy and lobectomy with excellent outcomes and high satisfaction. Discharge by POD1 was associated with never smokers and segmentectomy, and inversely associated with decreased baseline performance status and perioperative complications.