Faculty Bibliography

Robotic thoracic surgery continues to gain momentum and is emerging as the optimal method for minimally invasive thoracic surgery. As a rapidly advancing field, continued review of the surgical and anesthetic concerns unique to robotic thoracic operations is necessary to maintain safe and efficient practice. In this review, we discuss the intraoperative concerns as they pertain to pulmonary, esophageal, and mediastinal thoracic robotic operations.

OBJECTIVE:To describe outcomes of people admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States, and the clinical and laboratory characteristics associated with severity of illness. DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective cohort study. SETTING/METHODS:Single academic medical center in New York City and Long Island. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:5279 patients with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) infection between 1 March 2020 and 8 April 2020. The final date of follow up was 5 May 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Outcomes were admission to hospital, critical illness (intensive care, mechanical ventilation, discharge to hospice care, or death), and discharge to hospice care or death. Predictors included patient characteristics, medical history, vital signs, and laboratory results. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors for adverse outcomes, and competing risk survival analysis for mortality. RESULTS:Of 11 544 people tested for SARS-Cov-2, 5566 (48.2%) were positive. After exclusions, 5279 were included. 2741 of these 5279 (51.9%) were admitted to hospital, of whom 1904 (69.5%) were discharged alive without hospice care and 665 (24.3%) were discharged to hospice care or died. Of 647 (23.6%) patients requiring mechanical ventilation, 391 (60.4%) died and 170 (26.2%) were extubated or discharged. The strongest risk for hospital admission was associated with age, with an odds ratio of >2 for all age groups older than 44 years and 37.9 (95% confidence interval 26.1 to 56.0) for ages 75 years and older. Other risks were heart failure (4.4, 2.6 to 8.0), male sex (2.8, 2.4 to 3.2), chronic kidney disease (2.6, 1.9 to 3.6), and any increase in body mass index (BMI) (eg, for BMI >40: 2.5, 1.8 to 3.4). The strongest risks for critical illness besides age were associated with heart failure (1.9, 1.4 to 2.5), BMI >40 (1.5, 1.0 to 2.2), and male sex (1.5, 1.3 to 1.8). Admission oxygen saturation of <88% (3.7, 2.8 to 4.8), troponin level >1 (4.8, 2.1 to 10.9), C reactive protein level >200 (5.1, 2.8 to 9.2), and D-dimer level >2500 (3.9, 2.6 to 6.0) were, however, more strongly associated with critical illness than age or comorbidities. Risk of critical illness decreased significantly over the study period. Similar associations were found for mortality alone. CONCLUSIONS:Age and comorbidities were found to be strong predictors of hospital admission and to a lesser extent of critical illness and mortality in people with covid-19; however, impairment of oxygen on admission and markers of inflammation were most strongly associated with critical illness and mortality. Outcomes seem to be improving over time, potentially suggesting improvements in care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created uncertainty regarding the safety and appropriate utilization of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) during this current outbreak. Surgical governing bodies such as Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and the Royal Colleges of Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland have made statements regarding the possibility of COVID-19 release into CO2 insufflant during MIS. The basis for this concern is prior evidence in the literature of other viral pathogen release during laparoscopic surgery. The recommendations are correctly based on caution given the lack of understanding of how COVID-19 compares to other viruses with regard to transmission and presence in CO2 during MIS. In this review we have investigated the available literature on COVID-19 transmission during MIS, address the implications of current and previously published recommendations and discuss steps to mitigate COVID-19 transmission during MIS for staff and patient safety.

BACKGROUND:COVID-19 is a worldwide pandemic, with many patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. Tracheostomy is not recommended by current guidelines as it is considered a super-spreading event due to aerosolization that unduly risks healthcare workers. METHODS:Patients with severe COVID-19 that were on mechanical ventilation ≥ 5 days were evaluated for percutaneous dilational tracheostomy. We developed a novel percutaneous tracheostomy technique that placed the bronchoscope alongside the endotracheal tube, not inside it. This improved visualization during the procedure and continued standard mechanical ventilation after positioning the inflated endotracheal tube cuff in the distal trachea. This technique offers a significant mitigation for the risk of virus aerosolization during the procedure. RESULTS:From March 10 to April 15, 2020, 270 patients with COVID-19 required invasive mechanical ventilation at New York University Langone Health Manhattan's campus of which 98 patients underwent percutaneous dilational tracheostomy. The mean time from intubation to the procedure was 10.6 days (SD ±5 days). Currently, thirty-two (33%) patients do not require mechanical ventilatory support, 19 (19%) have their tracheostomy tube downsized and 8 (8%) were decannulated. Forty (41%) patients remain on full ventilator support, while 19 (19%) are weaning from mechanical ventilation. Seven (7%) died as result of respiratory and multiorgan failure. Tracheostomy related bleeding was the most common complication (5 patients). None of health care providers have developed symptoms or tested positive for COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS:Our percutaneous tracheostomy technique appears to be safe and effective for COVID-19 patients and safe for healthcare workers.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Evidence of the optimal surgery strategy for early stage metachronous second primary lung cancer (SPLC) has been limited and controversial. This study aims to compare the survival outcomes of different extents of resection and lymph node evaluation in these patients. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Early stage metachronous SPLC patients, who had received lobectomy for initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) and developed SPLC more than 3 months later, were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database according to the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guideline. Overall survival (OS) and lung cancer-specific survival (CSS) of different extents of resection and lymph node evaluation were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox regression model. Results/UNASSIGNED:. 64.7%, P<0.001) compared with an examined lymph node number <10. The survival benefits of lobectomy and examined lymph node number ≥10 were further validated in multivariate Cox regression and subgroup analysis stratified by tumor size. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Lobectomy and thorough lymph node evaluation provided significantly longer survival, and thus should be considered for early stage metachronous SPLC whenever possible.

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.

BACKGROUND:Our objective is to report our outcomes and demonstrate our evolving technique for robotic sleeve resection of the airway, with or without lobectomy, using video vignettes. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed a single surgeon prospective database from October 2010 to October 2019. RESULTS:Over 9 years, there were 5,573 operations of which 1951 were planned for a robotic approach. There were 755 robotic lobectomies, 306 robotic segmentectomies, and 23 consecutive patients were scheduled for elective completely portal, robotic sleeve resection. Sleeve lobectomy was performed in 18 patients: 10 right upper lobe, 6 left upper lobe, and 2 right lower lobe. Two patients had mainstem bronchus resections and two underwent right bronchus intermedius resections that preserved all of the lung. One patient had a robotic pneumonectomy. There was one conversion to open thoracotomy due to concern for anastomotic tension in a patient who received neoadjuvant therapy. All patients had an R0 resection. In the last 10 operations, we modified our airway anastomosis, using a running self-locking absorbable suture. The median length of stay was 3 days (range 1-11). There were no 30- or 90-day mortalities. Within a median follow-up of 18 months, there were no anastomotic strictures and no recurrent cancers. CONCLUSIONS:Our early and midterm results show that a completely portal robotic sleeve resection is safe and oncologically effective. The technical aspects of a robotic sleeve resection of the airway are demonstrated using video vignettes.

Systems engineering is an interdisciplinary approach to creating, evaluating, and managing a complex process in order to increase reliability, cost-effectiveness, and quality. The operating room is a complex environment that requires human-human interaction, human-device interaction, planning, and coordination of scarce resources for the purpose of providing surgery to patients in a safe and efficient manner. The operating room is an important revenue generator, but it can also be responsible for unsustainable costs if not managed effectively. Reducing costs and increasing the efficiency of surgical cases is important for generating health care value. Efficiency efforts that aim for standardization of surgical protocols must be balanced by flexibility in the unpredictable operating room environment. This paper reviews systems engineering efforts to improve efficiency in the operating room including operating room scheduling, personnel factors, resource management, orthopedicspecific initiatives, and future innovations.