Search

Abstract Background Competence in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy has previously been established on the basis of numbers of procedures performed, but this approach does not ensure competence. Specific assessment tools, such as the newly developed video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy assessment tool, allow for structured and objective assessment of competence. Our aim was to provide validity evidence for the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy assessment tool. Methods Video recordings of 60 video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomies performed by 18 thoracic surgeons were rated using the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy assessment tool. All 4 centers of thoracic surgery in Denmark participated in the study. Two video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery experts rated the videos. They were blinded to surgeon and center. Results The total internal consistency reliability Cronbach's alpha was 0.93. Inter-rater reliability between the 2 raters was Pearson's r = 0.71 (P <.001). The mean video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy assessment tool scores for the 10 procedures performed by beginners were 22.1 (standard deviation [SD], 8.6) for the 28 procedures performed by the intermediate surgeons, 31.2 (SD, 4.4), and for the 20 procedures performed by experts 35.9 (SD, 2.9) (P <.001). Bonferroni post hoc tests showed that experts were significantly better than intermediates (P <.008) and beginners (P <.001). Intermediates' mean scores were significantly better than beginners (P <.001). The pass/fail standard calculated using the contrasting group's method was 31 points. One of the beginners passed, and 2 experts failed the test. Conclusions Validity evidence was provided for a newly developed assessment tool for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy assessment tool) in a clinical setting. The discriminatory ability among expert surgeons, intermediate surgeons, and beginners proved highly significant. The video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy assessment tool could be an important aid in the future training and certification of thoracic surgeons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) is emerging as the standard surgical procedure for both minor and major oncological lung surgery. Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) and paravertebral block (PVB) are established analgesic golden standards for open surgery such as thoracotomy; however, there is no gold standard for regional analgesia for VATS. This systematic review aimed to assess different regional techniques with regard to effect on acute postoperative pain following VATS, with emphasis on VATS lobectomy. The systematic review of PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Embase databases yielded 1542 unique abstracts; 17 articles were included for qualitative assessment, of which three were studies on VATS lobectomy. The analgesic techniques included TEA, multilevel and single PVB, paravertebral catheter, intercostal catheter, interpleural infusion and long thoracic nerve block. Overall, the studies were heterogeneous with small numbers of participants. In comparative studies, TEA and especially PVB showed some effect on pain scores, but were often compared with an inferior analgesic treatment. Other techniques showed no unequivocal results. No clear gold standard for regional analgesia for VATS could be demonstrated, but a guide of factors to include in future studies on regional analgesia for VATS is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: Thoracoscopic (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)) lobectomy is a safe and effective method for treating early-stage lung cancer. Despite this, it is still not widely practised, which could be due to a shallow learning curve. We have evaluated the surgical outcome in a training programme at an institution with an established VATS lobectomy programme. We present the surgical data and outcome of the first 50 intended VATS lobectomies performed by a consultant in training as the primary surgeon. Methods: Data were obtained from a prospectively registered surgical database consisting of 262 consecutively intended VATS lobectomies. A single consultant performed 212 intended VATS lobectomies. His first 50 intended VATS lobectomies were excluded, as they were considered to be his learning curve, leaving 162 intended VATS lobectomies, of which 12 were converted to open lobectomy, performed from January 2005 to April 2008. Fifty intended VATS lobectomies were performed by a consultant in a training programme for VATS lobectomies, of which three were converted to open lobectomy from April 2007 to April 2008. The training consultant was experienced in open thoracic surgery and had performed more than 200 minor VATS procedures prior to the training programme. The surgical data and outcome between the 47 VATS lobectomies were compared with the 150 VATS lobectomies performed by the experienced consultant using statistical analysis. Results: There were significantly better results for the training consultant regarding prolonged air leak, chest tube duration and length of stay, which probably reflects the careful selection of the patients favouring the training consultant. The operation time was significant longer for the consultant in training (p <0.0001). Conclusions: With careful selection of patients, VATS lobectomy can be taught safely in a surgical institution experienced in VATS lobectomies. Using statistical analysis, the surgical outcome for the training consultant was acceptable in comparison to the outcome of the experienced consultant. The consultant in training did spend more time in the operating theatre (p <0.0001) and we recommend taking that into account when planning future training programmes in VATS lobectomy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Letter to the editor are presented in response to article "Major intraoperative complications during video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resections: an intention-to-treat analysis" by H. Decaluwe and colleagues in the previous issue along with response from the authors.