Reconstructive Techniques for Diaphragm Resection.

A variety of diaphragmatic and non-diaphragmatic pathologies may require resection, reconstruction, or repair of the diaphragm. Adequate reconstruction is crucial in cases of diaphragmatic resection to prevent the herniation of abdominal organs into the chest and to maintain optimal respiratory function. This article aims to provide a detailed overview of the techniques used for surgical diaphragm reconstruction, taking into account factors such as the size and location of the defect, available options for reconstructive materials, potential challenges and pitfalls, and considerations related to the recurrence or failure of the repair.

Immunotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Esophageal Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care for locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers includes neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy with surgical resection; however, disease-free survival in these patients remains poor. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for adjuvant treatment of locally advanced esophageal and GEJ cancers, but their benefit in the perioperative and neoadjuvant settings remains under investigation. METHODS: We used the PubMed online database to conduct a literature search to identify studies that investigated immunotherapy for locally advanced esophageal and GEJ carcinoma. A review of ClinicalTrials.gov yielded a list of ongoing trials. RESULTS: Adjuvant nivolumab for residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery is the only approved immunotherapy regimen for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Early-phase trials investigating the addition of neoadjuvant or perioperative ICIs to standard-of-care multimodality approaches have observed pathologic complete response rates as high as 60%. Response rates are highest for ICIs plus chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and dual checkpoint inhibition in mismatch repair-deficient adenocarcinomas. Safety profiles are acceptable, with a pooled adverse event rate of 27%. Surgical morbidity and mortality with immunotherapy are similar to historical controls with no immunotherapy, and R0 resection rates are high. When reported, disease-free survival among patients treated with perioperative immunotherapy is promising. CONCLUSIONS: Outside of clinical trials, immunotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma is limited to the adjuvant setting. Phase III trials investigating neoadjuvant and perioperative immunotherapy are now underway and will provide much-needed data on survival that may ultimately lead to practice-changing recommendations.

Early Repair of Rib Fractures Is Associated with Superior Length of Stay and Total Hospital Cost: A Propensity Matched Analysis of the National Inpatient Sample.

Background and Objectives: Previous studies have suggested that early scheduling of the surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is associated with superior outcomes. It is unclear if these data are reproducible at other institutions. We hypothesized that early SSRF would be associated with decreased morbidity, length of stay, and total charges. Materials and Methods: Adult patients who underwent SSRF for multiple rib fractures or flail chest were identified in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) by ICD-10 code from the fourth quarter of 2015 to 2016. Patients were excluded for traumatic brain injury and missing study variables. Procedures occurring after hospital day 10 were excluded to remove possible confounding. Early fixation was defined as procedures which occurred on hospital day 0 or 1, and late fixation was defined as procedures which occurred on hospital days 2 through 10. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of death, pneumonia, tracheostomy, or discharge to a short-term hospital, as determined by NIS coding. Secondary outcomes were length of hospitalization (LOS) and total cost. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum testing were performed to determine differences in outcomes between the groups. One-to-one propensity matching was performed using covariates known to affect the outcome of rib fractures. Stuart-Maxwell marginal homogeneity and Wilcoxon signed rank matched pair testing was performed on the propensity-matched cohort. Results: Of the 474 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 148 (31.2%) received early repair and 326 (68.8%) received late repair. In unmatched analysis, the composite adverse outcome was lower among early fixation (16.2% vs. 40.2%, p < 0.001), total hospital cost was less (USD114k vs. USD215k, p < 0.001), and length of stay was shorter (6 days vs. 12 days) among early SSRF patients. Propensity matching identified 131 matched pairs of early and late SSRF. Composite adverse outcomes were less common among early SSRF (18.3% vs. 32.8%, p = 0.011). The LOS was shorter among early SSRF (6 days vs. 10 days, p < 0.001), and total hospital cost was also lower among early SSRF patients (USD118k vs. USD183k late, p = 0.001). Conclusion: In a large administrative database, early SSRF was associated with reduced adverse outcomes, as well as improved hospital length of stay and total cost. These data corroborate other research and suggest that early SSRF is preferred. Studies of outcomes after SSRF should stratify analyses by timing of procedure.

Communication in your department and beyond.

Technical skills and clinical acumen are necessary for success in a surgical career. However, these skills alone are not sufficient. A surgeon's emotional intelligence and ability to communicate, manage conflict, and cultivate relationships may be even more critical to success. Health care environments are increasingly complex. An individual surgeon's or surgical department's success depends highly on the teams around them, including anesthesia, nursing, hospital administration, clinic teams, and many more. The surgeon's ability to communicate across the organization and lead by influence is critical.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database: 2023 Update on Outcomes and Research.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database (GTSD) continues its trajectory of growth and enhancement, solidifying its stature as a premier global thoracic surgical database. The past year witnessed a notable expansion with the inclusion of 10 additional participating sites, now totaling 287, augmenting the database's repository to more than 800,000 procedures. A significant stride was made in refining the data audit process, thereby elevating the accuracy and completeness metrics, a testament to the relentless pursuit of data integrity. The GTSD further broadened its research apparatus, with 15 scholarly publications, a 50% uptick from the preceding year. These publications underscore the database's instrumental role in advancing thoracic surgical knowledge. In a concerted effort to alleviate data entry exigencies, the GTSD Task Force also instituted streamlined data submission protocols, a move lauded by participant sites. This report delineates the recent advancements, volume trajectories, and outcome metrics and encapsulates the prolific research output emanating from the GTSD, reflecting a year of substantial progress and academic fecundity.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction.

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction.

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

Controversies in the surgical management of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has risen dramatically over the last decade. Over this same period, our understanding and treatments have been revolutionized. Just over a decade ago, the majority of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer went directly to surgery and our overall survival was bleak. Our current strategy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is a multi-disciplinary approach. This approach consists of chemotherapy plus or minus radiation followed by surgical resection followed by adjuvant immunotherapy with the presence of any residual disease. Therefore, now more than ever, the goals of surgery are to minimize morbidity, provide aggressive local control and allow patients to receive to quickly recover so they can receive adjuvant systemic therapy. Surgery continues to play a crucial role in the multi-disciplinary approach to EAC. This review will highlight the on-going areas of controversy in surgical treatment. These controversies are around surgical selection, perioperative decision making and the role of surgery. Specifically, there are controversies in the type of surgical approach offered. This review will discuss the benefits of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy. The indications for gastrectomy versus esophagectomy in patients with gastroesophageal junction EAC. Further, at the time of operation, there is still debate and on-going trials addressing the addition of a pyloric intervention. Lastly, as we push the limits of systemic therapy, there are those who may not even need a surgical resection. This review will cover the most recent data on selective esophageal resection and the concerns regarding this approach.

Risk factors for adverse outcomes following paraesophageal hernia repair among obese patients.

BACKGROUND: Although obesity is an established risk factor for adverse outcomes after paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR), many obese patients nonetheless receive PEHR. The purpose of this study was to explore risk factors for adverse outcomes of PEHR among this high-risk cohort. We hypothesized that obese patients may have other risk factors for adverse outcomes following PEHR. METHODS: A retrospective study of adult obese patients who underwent minimally invasive PEHR from 2017 to 2019 was performed. Patients were excluded for BMI < 30 or if they had concomitant bariatric surgery at time of PEHR. The primary outcome of interest was a composite adverse outcome (CAO) defined as having any of the four following outcomes after PEHR: persistent GERD > 30 d, persistent dysphagia > 30 d, recurrence, or reoperation. Chi-square and t-test analysis was used to compare demographic and clinical characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate independent predictors of CAO. RESULTS: In total, 139 patients met inclusion criteria with a median follow-up of 19.7 months (IQR 8.8-81). Among them, 51/139 (36.7%) patients had a CAO: 31/139 (22.4%) had persistent GERD, 20/139 (14.4%) had persistent dysphagia, 24/139 (17.3%) had recurrence, and 6/139 (4.3%) required reoperation. On unadjusted analysis, patients with a CAO were more likely to have a history of prior abdominal surgery (86.3% vs 70.5%, p = 0.04) and were less likely to have undergone a preoperative CT scan (27.5% vs 45.5%, p = 0.04). On multivariable analysis, previous abdominal surgery was independently associated with an increased likelihood of CAO whereas age and preoperative CT scan had a decreased likelihood of CAO. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were adverse outcomes among obese patients, minimally invasive PEHR may be feasible in a subset of patients at specialized centers. These findings may help guide the appropriate selection of obese patients for PEHR.

Disparities and access to thoracic surgeons among esophagectomy patients in the United States.

Esophagectomy is a complex operation with significant morbidity and mortality. Previous studies have shown that sub-specialization is associated with improved esophagectomy outcomes. We hypothesized that disparities would exist among esophagectomy patients regarding access to thoracic surgeons based on demographic, geographic, and hospital factors. The Premier Healthcare Database was used to identify adult inpatients receiving esophagectomy for esophageal and gastric cardia cancer, Barrett's esophagus, and achalasia from 2015 to 2019 using ICD-10 codes. Patients were categorized as receiving their esophagectomy from a thoracic versus non-thoracic provider. Survey methodology was used to correct for sampling error. Backwards selection from bivariable analysis was used in a survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression to determine predictors of esophagectomy provider specialization. During the study period, 960 patients met inclusion criteria representing an estimated population size of 3894 patients. Among them, 1696 (43.5%) were performed by a thoracic surgeon and 2199 (56.5%) were performed by non-thoracic providers. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with decreased likelihood of receiving care from a thoracic provider included Black (OR 0.41, p < 0.001), Other (OR 0.21, p < 0.001), and Unknown race (OR 0.22, p = 0.04), and uninsured patients (OR 0.53, p = 0.03). Urban hospital setting was associated with an increased likelihood of care by a thoracic provider (OR 4.43, p = 0.001). In this nationally representative study, Nonwhite race, rural hospital setting, and lower socioeconomic status were factors associated with decreased likelihood of esophagectomy patients receiving care from a thoracic surgeon. Efforts to address these disparities and provide appropriate access to thoracic surgeons is warranted.

Esophageal Perforation: Is Surgery Still Necessary?

Esophageal perforation is a rare but fatal disease process that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. Surgery has historically been required for treatment; however, there is currently a shift toward endoscopic management. Although no randomized controlled trials exist to compare patient outcomes, many case series and systematic analyses describe their indications, efficacy, and safety profile. Endoscopic stenting and endoscopic vacuum therapy are the 2 therapies most widely described across a diverse patient population and appear to be safe and effective when treating esophageal perforation, in the proper clinical setting. Guidelines and scoring systems exist to help direct management and stratify patient risk.

The Effect of Diabetes on Pathologic Complete Response Among Patients With Esophageal Cancer.

Diabetes is a common comorbidity in the U.S. and is associated with adverse outcomes in a variety of disease processes. Other cancer specialties have shown an association of diabetes with poor oncologic outcomes. We hypothesized that pathologic complete response (pCR) would be less likely among diabetic patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by esophagectomy resulting in worse overall survival (OS). We performed a retrospective chart review at 2 high-volume academic hospitals of all patients with esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by esophagectomy from 2010-2019. Patients were excluded if they had histology other than squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, did not receive multi-agent chemotherapy or received a radiation dose <39.6 Gy. The primary outcome of interest was pCR and secondary outcome was OS. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the likelihood of pCR and Cox hazard analysis was used to assess OS. In total, 244 patients met inclusion criteria: 190 (77.9%) were non-diabetic and 54 (22.1%) were diabetic. Diabetic and non-diabetic patients were similar in age, sex, institution where they received treatment, ASA class, comorbidities, histologic sub-type, clinical T and N stage, chemotherapy regimen and radiation dose. Diabetic patients were more likely to have a higher body mass index (29.1 vs 25.9, p < 0.001) and hypertension (87.0% vs 47.9%, p < 0.001). On univariable analysis, diabetes was the only factor associated with decreased likelihood of pCR (p = 0.04). Multivariable analysis showed diabetes was again the only factor associated with a decreased likelihood of pCR (OR 0.32, p = 0.03). Cox survival analysis showed that older age (HR 1.03, p = 0.02) and overall posttreatment pathologic stage 2 (HR 2.16, p = 0.03), stage 3 (HR 3.25, p < 0.001), and stage 4 (HR 5.75, p < 0.001) compared to pCR were associated with worse OS, however diabetes alone had no effect (HR 1.01, p = 0.98). This multi-institutional study shows that diabetes adversely affects pCR in patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer. Almost a quarter of patients with esophageal cancer have diabetes suggesting implications for management of these patients. Future studies are warranted to determine the optimal neoadjuvant treatment strategy for esophageal cancer patients with diabetes.