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%.

Wound Healing and Wound Care in Neonates: Current Therapies and Novel Options.

GENERAL PURPOSE: To provide wound care information that considers the specific physiology of neonates. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:1. Differentiate the use of hydrocolloids, hydrogels, foam dressings, and barrier creams in the neonatal population.2. Identify issues related to the use of solvents, alginates, collagen dressings, and negative-pressure wound therapy in neonates. ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVETo discuss what is known about the wound milieu in premature and full-term neonates, including the unique challenges pediatric clinicians face, the therapies that have proven effective, and the therapies contraindicated for use in neonatal wound healing to guide treatment that accounts for the specific physiological characteristics of this often overlooked population. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected on neonatal wound healing from a wide variety of sources, including PubMed, Google Scholar, journals, and textbooks. STUDY SELECTION: Selection criteria included publications focused on the differences and nuances of wound healing in neonates in comparison with all other age groups. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted based on articles covering wound healing therapies with proven effectiveness in neonates. Terms for neonatal wound care were compiled, and then a comprehensive literature search was performed by the authors. DATA SYNTHESIS: Although many therapies are safe for treatment of older children and adolescents, most have not been explicitly tested for neonatal use. This article reviews therapies with proven effectiveness and/or specific concerns in the neonatal population. CONCLUSION: This review sheds light on the advantages and disadvantages of current standards of care regarding wound healing for neonates to direct researchers and clinicians toward developing treatments specifically for this delicate population.

To discuss what is known about the wound milieu in premature and full-term neonates, including the unique challenges pediatric clinicians face, the therapies that have proven effective, and the therapies contraindicated for use in neonatal wound healing to guide treatment that accounts for the specific physiological characteristics of this often overlooked population. Data were collected on neonatal wound healing from a wide variety of sources, including PubMed, Google Scholar, journals, and textbooks. Selection criteria included publications focused on the differences and nuances of wound healing in neonates in comparison with all other age groups. Data were extracted based on articles covering wound healing therapies with proven effectiveness in neonates. Terms for neonatal wound care were compiled, and then a comprehensive literature search was performed by the authors. Although many therapies are safe for treatment of older children and adolescents, most have not been explicitly tested for neonatal use. This article reviews therapies with proven effectiveness and/or specific concerns in the neonatal population. This review sheds light on the advantages and disadvantages of current standards of care regarding wound healing for neonates to direct researchers and clinicians toward developing treatments specifically for this delicate population.