Faculty Bibliography

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:Operating rooms are a scarce resource but often used inefficiently. Operating room efficiency emerges as an important part of maximizing surgical capacity and productivity, minimizing delays, and optimizing lung cancer outcomes. The operative time (time between patient entering and leaving the operating room) is discrete and the one that the surgical team can most directly influence. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the literature and identify methods to improve the efficiency of the intraoperative phase of operations for lung cancer. Methods/UNASSIGNED:A literature search (in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus) was performed from inception up to March 9, 2020, according to the methodology described in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Results/UNASSIGNED:We identified 3 articles relevant to the intraoperative phase of lung cancer operating room efficiency. All 3 were consistent in showing clinically relevant time reductions in the intraoperative phase or procedures relevant to this phase. The authors demonstrated that the application of various improvement methodologies resulted in a substantial reduction in operative time, which was associated with a reduction in complications, and improved staff morale. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Our systematic review found that various improvement methodologies have the potential to significantly reduce operative time for lung cancer surgery. This increases the value of lung cancer surgery. These findings are consistent with the wider literature on improving surgical efficiency.

While lung cancer remains the most common cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States, surgery for curative intent continues to be a mainstay of therapy. The robotic platform for pulmonary resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been utilized for more than a decade now. With respect to more localized resections, such as wedge resection or lobectomy, considerable data exist demonstrating shorter length of stay, decreased postoperative pain, improved lymph node dissection, and overall lower complication rate. There are a multitude of technical advantages the robotic approach offers, such as improved optics, natural movement of the operator's hands to control the instruments, and precise identification of tissue planes leading to a more ergonomic and safe dissection. Due to the advantages, the scope of robotic resections is expanding. In this review, we will look at the existing data on extended robotic pulmonary resections, specifically post-induction therapy resection, sleeve lobectomy, and pneumonectomy. Additionally, this review will examine the indications for these more complex resections, as well as review the data and outcomes from other institutions' experience with performing them. Lastly, we will share the strategy and outlook of our own institution with respect to these three types of extended pulmonary resections. Though some controversy remains regarding the use and safety of robotic surgery in these complex pulmonary resections, we hope to shed some light on the existing evidence and evaluate the efficacy and safety for patients with NSCLC.

Management of patients with lung cancer continues to be challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the increased risk of complications in this subset of patients. During the COVID-19 surge in New York City, New York University Langone Health adopted triage strategies to help with care for lung cancer patients, with good surgical outcomes and no transmission of COVID-19 to patients or healthcare workers. Here, we will review current recommendations regarding screening and management of lung cancer patients during both a non-surge phase and surge phase of COVID-19.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic remains a disruptive force upon the health care system, with particular import for thoracic surgery given the pulmonary pathophysiology and disease implications of the virus. The rapid and severe onset of disease required expedient innovation and change in patient management and novel approaches to care delivery and nimbleness of workforce. In this review, we detail our approaches to patients with COVID-19, including those that required surgical intervention, our expedited and novel approach to bronchoscopy and tracheostomy, and our expansion of telehealth. The pandemic has created a unique opportunity to reflect on our delivery of care in thoracic surgery and apply lessons learned during this time to "rethink" how to optimize resources and deliver excellent and cutting-edge patient care.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in patient reluctance to seek care due to fear of contracting the virus, especially in New York City which was the epicentre during the surge. The primary objectives of this study are to evaluate the safety of patients who have undergone pulmonary resection for lung cancer as well as provider safety, using COVID-19 testing, symptoms and early patient outcomes. METHODS:Patients with confirmed or suspected pulmonary malignancy who underwent resection from 13 March to 4 May 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS:Between 13 March and 4 May 2020, 2087 COVID-19 patients were admitted, with a median daily census of 299, to one of our Manhattan campuses (80% of hospital capacity). During this time, 21 patients (median age 72 years) out of 45 eligible surgical candidates underwent pulmonary resection-13 lobectomies, 6 segmentectomies and 2 pneumonectomies were performed by the same providers who were caring for COVID-19 patients. None of the patients developed major complications, 5 had minor complications, and the median length of hospital stay was 2 days. No previously COVID-19-negative patient (n = 20/21) or healthcare provider (n = 9: 3 surgeons, 3 surgical assistants, 3 anaesthesiologists) developed symptoms of or tested positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS:Pulmonary resection for lung cancer is safe in selected patients, even when performed by providers who care for COVID-19 patients in a hospital with a large COVID-19 census. None of our patients or providers developed symptoms of COVID-19 and no patient experienced major morbidity or mortality.

BACKGROUND:Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed in various ways. The lack of international definitions and nomenclature makes accurate comparison of outcomes difficult. METHODS:An international, multi-specialty consensus-writing committee constructed definitions and nomenclature for MIE. After a PubMed search, vetting, and review with all authors a consensus was reached. RESULTS:The proposed definition for MIE is an operation "that removes part or all of the esophagus, does not retract, lift, spread or remove any part of the chest or abdominal wall and the surgeon's and assistant's vision of the operative field is via a monitor, the patient's tissue is manipulated only by instruments that are controlled by the operating surgeon or team, except for during the neck portion if used." A flexible nomenclature is proposed that attempts to describes current and future operations and systems. CONCLUSIONS:Definitions and nomenclature for MIE are needed to ensure that future studies accurately compare results and outcomes of similar operations. Nomenclatures allow surgeons, researchers and patients from different cultures to use a common language to facilitate communication and compare. This process is required in order to improve patient outcomes globally to drive adoption of best of practice yet is lacking for minimally invasive esophagectomy.