Does Timing of Robotic Esophagectomy Adoption Impact Short-Term Postoperative Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Robotic esophagectomies are increasingly common and are reported to have superior outcomes compared with an open approach; however, it is unclear if all institutions can achieve such outcomes. We hypothesize that early adopters of robotic technique would have improved short-term outcomes. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (2010-2016) was used to identify robotic esophagectomies. Early adopters were defined as programs which performed robotic esophagectomies in 2010-2011, late adopters in 2012-2013. Outcomes of esophagectomies performed between 2014 and 2016 were compared and included length of stay, number of lymph nodes evaluated, readmission, conversion rate, and 90-day mortality. Multivariable regressions, accounting for robotic esophagectomy volume, were used to control for confounding factors. RESULTS: There were 37 early adopters and 35 late adopters. Between 2014 and 2016, 683 robotic esophagectomies were performed: 446 (65.3%) by early adopters and 237 (34.7%) by late adopters. Early adopters were more likely to be academic programs (96.2 versus 72.8%, P < 0.01). Other clinical and demographic variables were similar. Late adopters were found to have decreased a number of lymph nodes evaluated (coefficient -2.407, P = 0.004) compared with early adopters. There were no significant differences in length of stay, readmissions, rate of positive margins, conversion from robotic to open, or 90-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: When accounting for robotic esophagectomy volume, late adoption of robotic esophagectomy was associated with a reduced lymph node harvest, but other postoperative outcomes were similar. These data suggest that programs can safely start new robotic esophagectomy programs, but must ensure an adequate case load.

Robotic minimally invasive esophagectomy provides superior surgical resection.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic minimally invasive esophagectomy (RMIE) and "traditional" minimally invasive esophagectomy techniques (tMIE) have reported superior outcomes relative to open techniques. Differences in the outcomes of these two approaches have not been examined. We hypothesized that short-term outcomes of RMIE would be superior to tMIE. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The National Cancer Database was used to analyze outcomes of patients undergoing RMIE and tMIE from 2010 to 2016. Patients with clinical metastatic disease were excluded. Trends in the number of procedures performed with each approach were described using linear regression testing. Primary outcome of interest was 90-day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes of interest were positive surgical margin rate, number of lymph nodes (LN) removed, adequate lymphadenectomy (> 15 LNs), length of hospitalization (LOS), readmission rate, and conversion to open rate. Outcomes of RMIE and tMIE were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi square test as appropriate. Multivariable regression was also performed to reduce the impact of differences in the cohorts of patients receiving RMIE and tMIE. RESULTS: 6661 minimally invasive esophagectomies were performed from 2010 to 2016 (1543/6661 (23.2%) RMIE and 5118/6661 (76.8%) tMIE). Over the study period, the proportion of RMIE increased from 10.4% (64/618) in 2010 to 27.2% (331/1216) in 2016 (p < 0.001) (Fig. 1). The primary outcome of 90-day mortality was similar between RMIE and tMIE (92/1170 (7.4%) vs 305/4148 (7.9%), p = 0.558) (Table 2). RMIE and tMIE also had similar readmission rate (6.3 vs 7%, p = 0.380). There was no difference between the cohorts based on sex, age, race, insurance, and tumor size. The cohorts of patients receiving RMIE and tMIE differed in that RMIE patients had lower rates of elevated Charlson scores, were more likely to be treated at an academic institution, had a higher rate of advanced clinical T-stage and clinical nodal involvement, and had received neoadjuvant therapy. In a univariate analysis, RMIE had a lower rate of positive margin (3.9 vs 6.1%, p = 0.001), more mean lymph nodes evaluated (16.6 ± 9.74 vs 16.1 ± 10.08 p = 0.018), lower conversion to open rate (5.4 vs 11.4%, p < 0.001), and a shorter mean length of stay (12.1 ± 10.39 vs 12.8 ± 11.18 days, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, RMIE was associated with lower risk of conversion to open (OR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.37-0.70, p < 0.001) and lower rate of positive margin (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.41-0.93, p = 0.021).). Additionally, in a multivariable logistic regression, RMIE demonstrated superior adequate lymphadenectomy (> 15 LNs) (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02-1.37, p < 0.032). CONCLUSION: In the National Cancer Database, robotic esophagectomy is associated with superior rate of conversion to open and positive surgical margin status. We speculate enhanced dexterity and visualization of RMIE facilitates intraoperative performance leading to improvement in these outcomes.

Outcomes of robotic esophagectomies for esophageal cancer by hospital volume: an analysis of the national cancer database.

BACKGROUND: Robotic minimally invasive esophagectomies (RMIE) have been associated with superior outcomes; however, it is unclear if these are specific to robotic technique or are present only at high-volume institutions. We hypothesize that low-volume RMIE centers would have inferior outcomes. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) identified patients receiving RMIE from 2010 to 2016. Based on the total number of RMIE performed by each hospital system, the lowest quartile performed ≤ 9 RMIE over the study period. Ninety-day mortality, number of lymph nodes evaluated, margins status, unplanned readmissions, length of stay (LOS), and overall survival were compared. Regression models were used to account for confounding. RESULTS: 1565 robotic esophagectomies were performed by 212 institutions. 173 hospitals performed ≤ 9 RMIE (totaling 478 operations over the study period, 30.5% of RMIE) and 39 hospitals performed > 9 RMIE (1087 operations, 69.5%). Hospitals performing > 9 RMIE were more likely to be academic centers (90.4% vs 66.2%, p < 0.001), have patients with advanced tumor stage (65.3% vs 59.8%, p = 0.049), andadministered preoperative radiation (72.8% vs 66.3%, p = 0.010). There were no differences based on demographics, nodal stage, or usage of preoperative chemotherapy. On multivariable regressions, hospitals performing ≤ 9 RMIE were associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing a 90-day mortality, a reduced number of lymph nodes evaluated, and a longer LOS; however, there was no association with rates of positive margins or unplanned readmissions. Median overall survival was decreased at institutions performing ≤ 9 RMIE (37.3 vs 51.5 months, p < 0.001). Multivariable Cox regression demonstrated an association with poor survival comparing hospitals performing ≤ 9 to > 9 RMIE (HR 1.327, p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Many robotic esophagectomies occur at institutions which performed relatively few RMIE and were associated with inferior short- and long-term outcomes. These data argue for regionalization of robotic esophagectomies or enhanced training in lower volume hospitals.

Surgical Repair vs Stent for Esophageal Perforation: A Multi-institutional Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic esophageal stenting is used as an alternative to surgical repair for esophageal perforation. Multi-institutional studies supporting stenting are lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of surgical repair and esophageal stenting in patients with esophageal perforation using a nationally representative database. We hypothesized that mortality between these approaches would not be different. METHODS: The Premier Healthcare Database was used to compare adult inpatients with esophageal perforation receiving either surgical repair or esophageal stenting from 2009 to 2019. Patients receiving intervention ≤7 days of admission were included in the analysis. Patients receiving both stent and repair on the same day were excluded. The composite outcome of interest was death or discharge to hospice. Logistic regression was used to evaluate independent predictors of death or hospice, adjusting for comorbidities. RESULTS: There were 2543 patients with esophageal perforation identified who received repair (1314 [51.7%]) or stenting (1229 [48.3%]). Stenting increased from 7.0% in 2009 to 78.1% in 2019. Patients receiving repair were more likely to be female and White and had fewer Elixhauser comorbidities. Death or discharge to hospice was more common after stent (134/1314 [10.2%] repair vs 199/1229 [16.2%] stent; P < .001); however, after adjustment for comorbidities, logistic regression suggested that death or hospice discharge was similar between approaches (stent vs repair: odds ratio, 1.074; 95% CI, 0.81-1.42; P = .622). Hospital length of stay was shorter after stenting (stent vs repair coefficient, -4.09; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with esophageal perforation, the odds for death or discharge to hospice were similar for esophageal stenting compared with surgical repair.

Wedge Resection Offers Similar Survival to Segmentectomy for Typical Carcinoid Tumors.

Current guidelines recommend anatomic lung resection of typical bronchopulmonary carcinoids. Typical carcinoid tumors have excellent prognosis and sublobar resection has been associated with noninferior long-term survival. It's unclear whether wedge resection is acceptable for small typical carcinoid tumors. We hypothesize there is no difference in survival between wedge resection and segmentectomy for Stage I typical bronchopulmonary carcinoid tumors. Using the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2016, we identified clinical T1N0M0 typical bronchopulmonary carcinoid tumors by wedge resection or segmentectomy. Short-term outcomes included length of stay, lymph nodes evaluated, pathologic node status, positive margin status, and 90-day mortality. Primary outcome was overall survival and estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. 821 patients were identified: 677 receiving wedge resection, 144 receiving segmentectomy. Segmentectomy was more commonly performed in an academic setting (70.0% vs 57.3%, P = 0.005). The mean tumor size for segmentectomy was 1.7 cm versus 1.4 cm for wedge resection (P < 0.001). There was no difference in LOS, positive margin status, and 90-day mortality between groups. There were significantly more lymph nodes evaluated in segmentectomy patients (median 4 vs 0, P < 0.001), but there was no difference in positive lymph node status (5.3% vs 2.6%, P = 0.165). The OS was similar between wedge and segmental resection (P = 0.613): 3-year survival (93.5% vs 92.8%) and 5-year survival (83.8% vs 84.9%). Wedge resection and segmentectomy have similar survival for Stage I typical bronchopulmonary carcinoids in a large national database. This analysis suggests nonanatomic, parenchymal-sparing resection should be considered an appropriate alternative for Stage I typical bronchopulmonary carcinoids.

Robotic Approach Has Improved Outcomes for Minimally Invasive Resection of Mediastinal Tumors.

BACKGROUND: The optimal minimally invasive surgical approach to mediastinal tumors is unknown. There are limited reports comparing the outcomes of resection with robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) surgery. We hypothesized that patients who underwent RATS would have improved outcomes. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for all patients who underwent a minimally invasive surgical approach for any mediastinal tumor from 2010 to 2016. Patients were determined to have an adverse composite outcome if they had any of the adverse perioperative outcomes: conversion to open procedure, 90-day mortality, 30-day readmission, and positive pathologic margins. Secondary outcomes of interest were length of stay and overall survival. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess likelihood of having a composite adverse outcome based on surgical approach. RESULTS: The study included 856 patients: 402 (47%) underwent VATS and 454 (53%) underwent RATS. RATS resections were associated with fewer conversions (4.9% vs 14.7%, P < .001), fewer positive margins (24.3% vs 31.6%, P = .02), shorter length of stay (3.8 days vs 4.3 days, P = .01), and fewer composite adverse events (36.7% vs 51.3%, P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed RATS (odds ratio, 0.44; P < .001) was independently associated with a decreased likelihood of a composite adverse outcome, even among tumors exceeding 4 cm (odds ratio, 0.45; P = .001). Overall survival was similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent a minimally invasive surgical approach for a mediastinal tumor, RATS had fewer adverse outcomes than VATS, even for tumors 4 cm or larger. These data suggests that RATS may be the preferred technique for patients who are candidates for minimally invasive resection of mediastinal tumors.

Conversion from thoracoscopic to open pneumonectomy is not associated with short- or long-term mortality.

BACKGROUND: Thoracoscopic pneumonectomy commonly requires conversion to thoracotomy. We hypothesize that conversion would lead to worse short- and long-term outcomes compared with operations completed thoracoscopically. METHODS: The National Cancer Database identified patients who underwent a pneumonectomy from 2010 to 2016. Trends in conversion were described using linear regression. Multivariable regression of factors associated with conversion was performed. Short-term outcomes included duration of stay, number of lymph nodes harvested, margin status, readmission, and 90-day mortality. Long-term outcome was evaluated as overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 8,037 patients underwent a pneumonectomy. The rate of attempted thoracoscopic pneumonectomies increased from 11% to 22% (P < .001) and the rate of conversion decreased from 39% to 33% (P = .011). On multivariable analysis, a greater patient comorbidity index and pathologic nodal-stage 2 disease were associated with an increased rate of conversion. The mean number of lymph nodes evaluated was greater as was the duration of stay in the conversion group, but conversion to open thoracotomy was not associated with positive surgical margins, readmission rate, 90-day mortality, or survival. CONCLUSION: Thoracoscopic pneumonectomy is performed with increasing frequency and decreasing conversion rate. Conversion is associated with a greater duration of stay but other short- and long-term outcomes are similar. This observation suggests minimal harm in conversion from minimally invasive to open pneumonectomy.

Factors associated with general surgery residents' decisions regarding fellowship and subspecialty stratified by burnout and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Although most surgery residents pursue fellowships, data regarding those decisions are limited. This study describes associations with interest in fellowship and specific subspecialties. METHODS: Anonymous surveys were distributed to 607 surgery residents at 19 US programs. Subspecialties were stratified by levels of burnout and quality of life using data from recent studies. RESULTS: 407 (67%) residents responded. 372 (91.4%) planned to pursue fellowship. Fellowship interest was lower among residents who attended independent or small programs, were married, or had children. Residents who received AOA honors or were married were less likely to choose high burnout subspecialties (trauma/vascular). Residents with children were less likely to choose low quality of life subspecialties (trauma/transplant/cardiothoracic). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery residents' interest in fellowship and specific subspecialties are associated with program type and size, AOA status, marital status, and having children. Variability in burnout and quality of life between subspecialties may affect residents' decisions.