Effects of preoperative pulmonary function on perioperative outcomes after robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Effects of pulmonary function test (PFT) results on perioperative outcomes were investigated after robotic-assisted video-thoracoscopic (RAVT) pulmonary lobectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 706 consecutive patients who underwent RAVT lobectomy by one surgeon over 10.8 years. Preoperative (preop) forced expiratory volume in 1 s as a percent of predicted (FEV1%) was used to group patients as having normal FEV1% (≥80%) versus reduced FEV1% (<80%). Demographics, preop comorbidities, intraoperative (intraop) and postoperative (postop) complications, perioperative outcomes, and median survival time (MST) were compared across patients with normal vs. reduced FEV1% using Chi-Square (X2), Fisher's Exact test, Student's t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, or Kaplan-Meier analysis respectively, with significance at p ≤ 0.05. Multivariable analysis was performed for perioperative outcomes to investigate the differences across patients in the FEV1% groups. RESULTS: There were 470 patients with normal FEV1% and 236 patients with reduced FEV1%. The two FEV1% groups did not differ in intraop or postop complication rates, except for higher postop other arrhythmia requiring intervention (p = 0.004), prolonged air leak >5 days (p = 0.002), mucous plug formation (p = 0.009), hypoxia (p < 0.001), and pneumonia (p = 0.002), and total postop complications (p < 0.001) in reduced-FEV1% patients. Reduced FEV1% correlated with increased intraop estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001) and skin-to-skin operative time (p < 0.0001). Median overall survival in patients with normal FEV1% was 93.20 months (95% CI: 76.5-126.0) versus 58.9 months (95% CI: 50.4-68.4) in patients with reduced FEV1% (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: Patients should have PFTs conducted before surgery to determine at-risk patients. However, RAVT pulmonary lobectomy is feasible and safe even in patients with reduced FEV1%.

A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Enoxaparin & Rivaroxaban for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Orthopaedic Trauma.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there is a difference in orthopaedic trauma patient medication satisfaction and adherence using an oral versus subcutaneous injectable anticoagulant for venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Single academic Level 1 trauma center. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty adult orthopaedic trauma patients with operative pelvic or lower extremity fractures were randomized and completed the study. INTERVENTION: Three weeks of either the service standard 40 mg once daily enoxaparin versus trial medication 10 mg once daily rivaroxaban postoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient satisfaction as measured by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9). Medication adherence as measured by the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). RESULTS: Medication adherence was similar in both groups. Medication satisfaction was significantly higher in the oral rivaroxaban group based on the TSQM-9 and patient-reported data. Secondary outcomes found no significant difference in the incidence of bleeding events or clinically relevant venous thromboembolism. The enoxaparin group experienced more adverse medication-related events. The rivaroxaban medication regimen costs 7.5-10× less out of pocket for uninsured patients. CONCLUSION: The results of this randomized controlled trial demonstrate that patients with surgical orthopaedic trauma prefer an oral anticoagulant for postoperative venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis and suggest that rivaroxaban may be a viable option. Furthermore, large-scale studies are needed to confirm safety and efficacy for rivaroxaban in this population as a potential alternative to enoxaparin and aspirin. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.