Search

Robotic thoracic surgery has demonstrated benefits. We aimed to evaluate implementation of a robotic thoracic surgery program on postoperative outcomes at our Veteran's Administration Medical Center (VAMC). We retrospectively reviewed our VAMC database from 2015 to 2021. Patients who underwent surgery with intention to treat lung nodules were included. Primary outcome was patient length of stay (LOS). Patients were grouped by surgical approach and stratified to before and after adoption of robotic surgery. Univariate comparison of postoperative outcomes was performed using Wilcoxon rank sums and chi-squared tests. Multivariate regression was performed to control for ASA class. P values 0.05 were considered significant. Outcomes of 108 patients were assessed. 63 operations (58%) occurred before and 45 (42%) after robotic surgery implementation. There were no differences in patient preoperative characteristics. More patients underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the post-implementation era than pre-implementation (85% vs. 42%, p 0.001). Robotic operations comprised 53% of operations post-implementation. On univariate analysis, patients in the post-implementation era had a shorter LOS vs. pre-implementation, regardless of surgical approach (mean 4.7 vs. 6.0 days, p = 0.04). On multivariate analysis, patients who underwent MIS had a shorter LOS [median 4 days (IQR 2-6 days) vs. 7 days (6-9 days), p 0.001] and were more likely to be discharged home than to inpatient facilities [OR (95% CI) 13.00 (1.61-104.70), p = 0.02]. Robotic thoracic surgery program implementation at a VAMC decreased patient LOS and increased the likelihood of discharging home. Implementation at other VAMCs may be associated with improvement in some patient outcomes.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the educational impact following the implementation of a robotic thoracic surgery program on cardiothoracic (CT) surgery trainees. We hypothesized that the introduction of a robotic thoracic surgery program would adversely affect the CT surgery resident experience, decreasing operative involvement and subsequent competency of surgical procedures. CT surgery residents and thoracic surgery attendings from a single academic institution were administered a recurring, electronic survey from September 2019 to September 2020 following each robotic thoracic surgery case. Surveys evaluated resident involvement and operative performance. This study was exempt from review by our Institutional Review Board. Attendings and residents completed surveys for 86 and 75 cases, respectively. Residents performed > 50% of the operation independently at the surgeon console in 66.2 and 73.3% of cases according to attending and resident responses, respectively. The proportion of trainees able to perform > 75% of the operation increased with each increasing year in training (p = 0.002). Based on the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills grading tool, third-year residents averaged higher scores compared to first-year residents (22.9 versus 17.4 out of 30 possible points, p

Background Formal surgical risk assessment tools have been developed to predict risk of adverse postoperative patient outcomes. Such tools accurately predict common postoperative complications, inform patients and providers of likely perioperative outcomes, guide decision making, and improve patient care. However, these are underutilized. We studied the attitudes towards and techniques of how surgeons preoperatively assess risk. Methods Surgeons at a large academic tertiary referral hospital and affiliate community hospitals were emailed a 16-question survey via REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) between 8/2019-6/2020. Reminder emails were sent once weekly for three weeks. All completed surveys by surgical residents and attendings were included; incomplete surveys were excluded. Surveys were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency distributions and percentages for categorical variables, means, and standard deviations for continuous variables), and Fisher’s exact test and unpaired t-tests comparing responses by surgical attendings vs. residents. Results A total of 108 surgical faculty, 95 surgical residents, and 58 affiliate surgeons were emailed the survey. Overall response rates were 50.0% for faculty surgeons, 47.4% for residents, and 36.2% for affiliate surgeons. Only 20.8% of surgeons used risk calculators most or all of the time. Attending surgeons were more likely to use prior experience and current literature while residents used risk calculators more frequently. Risk assessment tools were more likely to be used when predicting major complications and death in older patients with significant risk factors. Greatest barriers for use of risk assessment tools included time, inaccessibility, and trust in accuracy. Conclusions A small percentage of surgeons use surgical risk calculators as part of their routine practice. Time, inaccessibility, and trust in accuracy were the most significant barriers to use.

The objectives were to determine factors associated with conversion to open surgery in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE, including laparo-thoracoscopic and robotic) and the impact of conversion to open surgery on patient outcomes. We included patients from the National Cancer Database with esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer who underwent MIE from 2010 to 2015. Patient-, tumor-, and facility-related characteristics as well as short-term and oncologic outcomes were compared between patients who were converted to open surgery and those who underwent successful MIE without conversion to open surgery. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyze risk factors for conversion to open surgery from attempted MIE. 7306 patients underwent attempted MIE. Of these patients, 82 of 1487 (5.2%) robotic-assisted esophagectomies were converted to open, compared to 691 of 5737 (12.0%) laparo-thoracoscopic esophagectomies (p

Background The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) is a parsimonious set of models providing accurate preoperative prediction of common adverse outcomes for individual patients. However, focus groups with surgeons and patients have developed a list of questions about and recommendations for how to further improve SURPAS’s usability and usefulness. Eight issues were systematically evaluated to improve SURPAS. Methods The eight issues were divided into three groups: concerns to be addressed through further analysis of the database; addition of features to the SURPAS tool; and the collection of additional outcomes. Standard multiple logistic regression analysis was performed using the 2005–2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Participant Use File (ACS NSQIP PUF) to refine models: substitution of the preoperative sepsis variable with a procedure-related risk variable; testing of an indicator variable for multiple concurrent procedure codes in complex operations; and addition of outcomes to increase clinical applicability. Automated risk documentation in the electronic health record and a patient handout and supporting documentation were developed. Long term functional outcomes were considered. Results Model discrimination and calibration improved when preoperative sepsis was replaced with a procedure-related risk variable. Addition of an indicator variable for multiple concurrent procedures did not significantly improve the models. Models were developed for a revised set of eleven adverse postoperative outcomes that separated bleeding/transfusion from the cardiac outcomes, UTI from the other infection outcomes, and added a predictive model for unplanned readmission. Automated documentation of risk assessment in the electronic health record, visual displays of risk for providers and patients and an “About” section describing the development of the tool were developed and implemented. Long term functional outcomes were considered to be beyond the scope of the current SURPAS tool. Conclusion Refinements to SURPAS were successful in improving the accuracy of the models, while reducing manual entry to five of the eight variables. Adding a predictor variable to indicate a complex operation with multiple current procedure codes did not improve the accuracy of the models. We developed graphical displays of risk for providers and patients, including a take-home handout and automated documentation of risk in the electronic health record. These improvements should facilitate easier implementation of SURPAS. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13037-019-0208-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Leaks from intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis are thought to be associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality than leaks from cervical anastomosis. We challenge this assumption and hypothesize that there is no significant difference in mortality based on the location of the esophagogastric anastomosis. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and Embase databases on all studies published from January 2000 to June 2015, comparing transthoracic (TTE) and transhiatal (THE) esophagectomies. Studies using jejunal or colonic interposition were excluded. Outcomes analyzed were leak rate, leak-associated mortality, overall 30-day mortality, and overall morbidity. Meta-analyses were performed using Mantel–Haenszel statistical analyses on studies reporting leak rates of both approaches. Nominal data are presented as frequency and interquartile range (IQR); measures of the association between treatments and outcomes are presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence interval. Twenty-one studies (3 randomized controlled trials) were analyzed comprising of 7167 patients (54 % TTE). TTE approach yields a lower anastomotic leak rate (9.8 %; IQR 6.0–12.2 %) than THE (12 %; IQR 11.6–22.1 %; OR 0.56 [0.34–0.92]), without any significant difference in leak associated mortality (7.1 % TTE vs. 4.6 % THE: OR 1.83 [0.39–8.52]). There was no difference in overall 30-day mortality (3.9 % TTE vs. 4.3 % THE; OR 0.86 [0.66–1.13]) and morbidity (59.0 % TTE vs. 66.6 % THE; OR 0.76 [0.37–1.59]). Based on meta-analysis, TTE is associated with a lower leak rate and does not result in higher morbidity or mortality than THE. The previously assumed higher rate of transthoracic anastomotic leak-associated mortality is overstated, thus supporting surgeon discretion and other factors to influence the choice of thoracic versus cervical anastomosis.