Background Management of acute esophageal perforation continues to evolve. We hypothesized that treatment of these patients at a tertiary referral center is more important than beginning treatment ...within 24 hours, and that the evolving application of nonsurgical treatment techniques by surgeons would produce improved outcomes. Study Design Demographics and outcomes of patients treated for esophageal perforation from 1989 to 2009 were recorded in an Institutional Review Board–approved database. Retrospective outcomes assessment was done for 5 separate time spans, including timing and type of treatment, length of stay (LOS), complications, and mortality. Results Eighty-one consecutive patients presented with acute esophageal perforation. Their mean age was 64 years, and 55 patients (68%) had American Society of Anesthesiologists levels 3 to 5; 59% of the study population was referred from other hospitals; 48 patients (59%) were managed operatively, 33 (41%) nonoperatively, and 10 patients with hybrid approaches involving a combination of surgical and interventional techniques; 57 patients (70%) were treated <24 hours and 24 (30%) received treatment >24 hours after perforation. LOS was lower in the early-treatment group; however, there was no difference in complications or mortality. Nonoperative therapy increased from 0% to 75% over time. Nonsurgical therapy was more common in referred cases (48% vs 30%) and in the >24 hours treatment group (46% vs 38%). Over the period of study, there were decreases in complications (50% to 33%) and LOS (18.5 to 8.5 days). Mortality for the entire series involved 3 patients (4%): 2 operative and 1 nonoperative. Conclusions Results from our series indicate that referral to a tertiary care center is as important as treatment within 24 hours. An experienced surgical management team using a diversified approach, including selective application of nonoperative techniques, can expect to shorten LOS and limit complications and mortality.
Abstract
Background
Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) is gaining prominence in treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) for patients with absent or small hiatal hernia. As TIF ...gains popularity, appropriate patient evaluation and selection is paramount in establishing anatomical candidacy hence successful outcome. We evaluated patients who were intended to be treated with TIF and underwent a standard evaluation but instead underwent robotic hiatal hernia repair. We compared their preoperative evaluation of hernia size with intraoperative findings.
Methods
A cohort of seventy-six patients from a single-center database from January 2020 to March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. All were deemed candidates for TIF based on our inclusion criteria (pH confirmation of GERD, hiatal hernia <2 cm) and underwent preoperative testing with endoscopy, esophagram, pH and manometry. Twenty-seven of these patients either were denied TIF by their insurance company or had personal preference for surgery (daVHH) over endoscopic intervention and underwent robotic assisted paraesophageal hernia repair. We examined intraoperative measurements of hiatal hernia size and EG junction anatomy and compared them to standard preoperative evaluation.
Results
On pre-operative endoscopy 23 patients were found to have no hiatal hernia, 20 were found to have a small hernia, 3 a medium hernia, and 1 a large hernia. Esophagram evaluation demonstrated no hiatal hernia in 17 patients and a small hernia in 23 patients. The average hiatal hernia size seen during manometry was 0.54 cm (0–2 cm) while the average hernia seen intra-operatively was 3.26 cm (1.5–4.8 cm). There was a significant difference between preoperative hernia size evaluated by manometry and intraoperative hernia size (p-value 0.04).
Conclusion
Standard preoperative evaluation of patients intended to be treated with TIF appears to have a tendency to underestimate the size of hiatal hernia and omits evaluation of paraesophageal anatomy. This can lead to poor patient selection of failure of this treatment modality. Addition of cross-sectional imaging to the evaluation of patients with small hiatal hernias can facilitate a more meaningful therapeutic decision making for endoscopic, surgical, and combination treatment options.
Background A regional quality improvement effort does not exist for thoracic surgery in the United States. To initiate the development of one, we sought to describe temporal trends and hospital-level ...variability in associated outcomes and costs of pulmonary resection in Washington (WA) State. Methods A cohort study (2000–2011) was conducted of operated-on lung cancer patients. The WA State discharge database was used to describe outcomes and costs for operations performed at all nonfederal hospitals within the state. Results Over 12 years, 8,457 lung cancer patients underwent pulmonary resection across 49 hospitals. Inpatient deaths decreased over time (adjusted p- trend = 0.023) but prolonged length of stay did not (adjusted p -trend = 0.880). Inflation-adjusted hospital costs increased over time (adjusted p -trend < 0.001). Among 24 hospitals performing at least 1 resection per year, 5 hospitals were statistical outliers in rates of death (4 lower and 1 higher than the state average), and 13 were outliers with respect to prolonged length of stay (7 higher and 6 lower than the state average) and costs (5 higher and 8 lower than the state average). When evaluated for rates of death and costs, there were hospitals with fewer deaths/lower costs, fewer deaths/higher costs, more deaths/lower costs, and more deaths/higher costs. Conclusions Variability in outcomes and costs over time and across hospitals suggest opportunities to improve the quality and value of thoracic surgery in WA State. Examples from cardiac surgery suggest that a regional quality improvement collaborative is an effective way to meaningfully and rapidly act upon these opportunities.
The harm associated with imaging abnormalities related to lung cancer screening (LCS) is not well documented, especially outside the clinical trial and academic setting.
What is the frequency of ...invasive procedures and complications associated with a community based LCS program, including procedures for false-positive and benign, but clinically important, incidental findings?
We performed a single-center retrospective study of an LCS program at a nonuniversity teaching hospital from 2016 through 2019 to identify invasive procedures prompted by LCS results, including their indication and complications.
Among 2,003 LCS participants, 58 patients (2.9%) received a diagnosis of lung cancer and 71 patients (3.5%) received a diagnosis of any malignancy. Invasive procedures were performed 160 times in 103 participants (5.1%), including 1.7% of those without malignancy. Eight invasive procedures (0.4% of participants), including four surgeries (12% of diagnostic lung resections), were performed for false-positive lung nodules. Only 1% of Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4A nodules that proved benign were subject to an invasive procedure. Among those without malignancy, an invasive procedure was performed in eight participants for extrapulmonary false-positive findings (0.4%) and in 19 participants (0.9%) to evaluate incidental findings considered benign but clinically important. Procedures for the latter indication resulted in treatment, change in management, or diagnosis in 79% of individuals. Invasive procedures in those without malignancy resulted in three complications (0.15%). Seventy nonsurgical procedures (6% complication rate) and 48 thoracic surgeries (4% major complication rate) were performed in those with malignancy.
The use of invasive procedures to resolve false-positive findings was uncommon in the clinical practice of a nonuniversity LCS program that adhered to a nodule management algorithm and used a multidisciplinary approach. Incidental findings considered benign but clinically important resulted in invasive procedure rates that were similar to those for false-positive findings and frequently had clinical value.
The treatment of symptomatic pseudarthrosis via posterior-only approaches in the setting of neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) is challenging due to dural ectasias, resulting in erosion of the posterior ...elements. The purpose of this report is to illustrate a minimally invasive method for performing anterior thoracic fusion for pseudarthrosis in a patient with NF1-associated scoliosis and dysplastic posterior elements. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first documented case of using video-assisted thoracoscopic lateral interbody fusion to treat pseudarthrosis for NF1-associated spinal deformity.
The patient underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic anterior spinal fusion via a direct lateral interbody approach with interbody cage placement at T10-T11 and T11-T12, followed by revision of his posterior spinal fusion and instrumentation. The patient had an uneventful postoperative course. At 6 months of follow-up, the patient had complete resolution of his preoperative symptoms and had returned to full-time work with no complaints. At 3 years postoperatively, the patient reported being satisfied with the operation and had continued to work full-time without restrictions.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of pseudarthrosis in the setting of NF1-associated scoliosis treated via minimally invasive anterior thoracic fusion facilitated by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. This is a powerful technique that allows for safe access for anterior thoracic fusion in the setting of dysplastic posterior anatomy and poor posterior bone stock.
Abstract only
153
Background: Patients’ geographic location can impact access to specialty care and affect the appropriateness and timeliness of evaluation leading to primary surgical treatment of ...lung cancer. Cancer care coordination has long been speculated to lead to greater efficiency in oncologic care, yet objective measures demonstrating the utility of such healthcare team members is lacking. We aimed to study the impact of patients’ residence on healthcare encounters, travel burden and the distribution of physiologic and oncologic workup leading to delays in care at a specialty cancer center. Methods: We conducted a single center retrospective cohort study of 103 patients undergoing workup of primary lung cancer between January 2015 and August 2017. The shortest route between patient residence and treating medical center was measured in miles and classified as: urban ( < 40 miles); rural (40.1 – 100 miles); and regional (100.1 – 1,000 miles). Average total miles traveled (i.e. travel burden), total number of healthcare encounters, and the distribution of physiologic and oncologic evaluations as drivers of delay in care were examined. Results: Patients were categorized as urban n = 80 (77.7%); rural n = 12 (11.7%); and regional n = 11 (10.7%). Median travel burden (urban = 100 miles interquartile range, IQR 56-216.8; rural = 385.7 127.1 – 769; regional = 780 560 – 1936; p < 0.001) and median total healthcare encounters (urban = 7 6-9; rural = 9 7-9.5; regional = 10 7-12; p = 0.3) increased with greater distance of patient residence from treating medical center. Additional necessary physiologic workup was associated with delayed care and greater burden in the rural and regional patients compared to those residing in urban locations (urban = 21% increase; rural = 152%; regional = 162%). Additional oncologic workup was associated with delayed care in the regional group only (49% increase). These trends remained even when controlling for clinical stage. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the need for better cancer care coordination for rural and regional lung cancer patients to improve efficiency, appropriateness and timeliness of care while decreasing patient-related burdens.
Abstract
Background
Early recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines have provided an effective recovery approach for esophagectomy. Adherence to ERAS benchmarks leads to improvements in accelerated ...recovery over time. We evaluated differences in ERAS clinical benchmark achievements in patients undergoing hybrid robotic assisted esophagectomy (hRAMIE) and the impact on length of hospital stay (LOS). We also examined the overall performance of our ERAS program and impact of operative technique on recovery and readmissions over time.
Methods
A single-center prospective database of esophageal cancer patients was retrospectively analyzed between January 2020 and December 2022. All consecutive patients underwent hRAMIE within a standardized ERAS pathway. Impact of individual ERAS benchmark achievements on postoperative outcomes were evaluated according to LOS groups: accelerated (≤6 days, AR), targeted (7–8 days, TR), and delayed recovery (≥9 days, DR). Ability to achieve AR and readmission rates were compared with previous esophagectomy patient cohorts and institutional published data. Data were tested for normality with Shapiro–Wilk testing. Continuous variables were compared via ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis testing. Categorical variables were compared via Fisher testing.
Results
Sixty-four patients underwent hRAMIE with a median LOS 5.5 days. AR, TR, and DR was achieved by 75.0%, 18.8%, and 6.3% patients, respectively. AR outperformed the other groups in ICU stay (p = 0.0046), transition to PO medications (p < 0.0001), and chest tube removal (p = 0.0002). Complications (48.4%) were more frequent among the TR and DR groups (p = 0.0051). 30-day readmission rate of 9.4% did not differ among the recovery groups (AR 6.2%, TR 25.0%, DR 0%, p = 0.114). 90-day mortality was 4.7% and disproportionately impacted the DR group (p = 0.0203). AR increased overtime without impacting readmission rate compared to previous cohorts in our ERAS center (Figure 1).
Conclusion
Within a common ERAS pathway at a single center, adherence to recovery benchmarks in patients undergoing hRAMIE multiplies the impact of ERAS and evolving operative technique on accelerated recovery across time. Improvements in AR can be achieved without affecting readmission rates. Routine audit of achievements of ERAS benchmarks is necessary to maintain post-esophagectomy outcomes in a time of changing health care resources.
