Pulmonary segmentectomy by thoracotomy or thoracoscopy: reduced hospital length of stay with a minimally-invasive approach.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have discouraged limited pulmonary resection for primary lung cancer, but pulmonary segmentectomy has advantages for some patients. Furthermore, while thoracoscopic lobectomy has been increasingly applied with well-demonstrated advantages compared with thoracotomy, few data exist regarding thoracoscopic approaches to pulmonary segmentectomy. This study compares thoracoscopic segmentectomy (TS) with open segmentectomy (OS). METHODS: This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data for 77 consecutive segmentectomy patients treated between 2000 and 2006 at a single center. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables for patients undergoing TS (n = 48) were compared with those undergoing OS (n = 29). Student's t tests were used for continuous data and Fisher's exact tests for dichotomous data. RESULTS: Baseline demographics were similar between groups. Indications for pulmonary resection included non-small cell lung cancer (n = 39), metastatic disease (n = 30), and other diagnoses (n = 8). All common segmentectomies were represented. No thoracoscopic cases required conversion to open procedures. Operative times, estimated blood loss, and chest tube duration were similar between groups. Outcomes were similar except that hospital length of stay was significantly less among TS patients (length of stay 6.8 +/- 6 days OS versus 4.3 +/- 3 days TS; p = 0.03). Thirty-day mortality was 6.9% (2 of 29) for the OS group compared with 0% for the TS group. Long-term survival rates were significantly better in the TS group (p = 0.0007). CONCLUSIONS: Thoracoscopic segmentectomy is a safe and feasible procedure, comparing favorably with OS by reducing hospital length of stay. For experienced thoracoscopic surgeons, TS appears to be a sound option for lung-sparing, anatomic pulmonary resections.

Reducing hospital morbidity and mortality following esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Esophagogastrectomy (EG) is a formidable operation with significant morbidity and mortality rates. Risk factor analyses have been performed, but few studies have produced strategies that have improved operative results. This study was performed in order to identify prognostic variables that might be used to develop a strategy for optimizing outcomes after EG. METHODS: The records of all patients (n = 379) who underwent EG patients at a tertiary medical center between 1996 and 2002 were retrospectively reviewed. Thirty-day morbidity and mortality were determined, and multivariable logistical regression analysis assessed the effect of preoperative and postoperative variables on early mortality. RESULTS: Operations included Ivor Lewis (n = 179), transhiatal (n = 130), and other approaches (n = 70). Operative mortality was 5.8%; 64% experienced complications, including respiratory complications (28.5%), anastamotic strictures (25%), and leak (14%). Increasing age, anastomotic leak, Charlson comorbidity index 3, worse swallowing scores, and pneumonia were associated with increased risk of mortality by univariate analysis. However, only age (p = 0.002) and pneumonia (p = 0.0008) were independently associated with mortality by multivariable analysis. Pneumonia was associated with a 20% incidence of death. Patients with pneumonia had significantly worse deglutition and anastomotic integrity on barium esophagogram compared with patients without pneumonia (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney rank sum test). CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity and mortality of EG are significant, but most complications, including anastomotic leak, are not independent predictors of mortality. The most important complication after EG is pneumonia. Strategies to decrease postoperative mortality should include careful assessment of swallowing abnormalities and predisposition to aspiration by cineradiography or fiberoptic endoscopy. After EG, acceptable pharyngeal function and airway protection should be verified before resuming oral intake.