Exposure to ionizing radiation during liver transplantation evaluation, waitlist time, and in the postoperative period: a cause for concern.

UNLABELLED: Substantial evidence has linked ionizing radiation exposure (RE) to oncogenesis. Patients evaluated for transplantation undergo extensive diagnostic imaging and have increased baseline cancer risk factors. The objective was to examine exposure in a cohort of patients undergoing evaluation and liver transplantation. Radiation exposure from all diagnostic examinations and procedures were retrospectively recorded. Radiation exposure is reported in mSv, a standardized measure of the detrimental biologic effect of radiation which allows for population-level comparisons. Seventy-four patients (69% male, mean 57 years) were evaluated, of which 13 of 35 subsequently listed patients were transplanted; an additional 18 previously evaluated patients were also transplanted during 2010. The most common indications were hepatitis C (55%) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (30%). The median observation period was 14 months. In all, 1,826 imaging examinations were performed, of which 408 (22%) involved considerable ionizing radiation and were the focus of investigation. Median annualized effective RE was 51 mSv (interquartile range [IQR]: 19,126), with 10% exposed to almost twice the amount of radiation recommended for a 5-year period. Patients with HCC received significantly (P < 0.00001) higher median annualized effective RE than patients without HCC, 137 mSv (IQR: 87,259) versus 32 mSv (IQR: 13,57), respectively. Computed tomography (CT) abdomen (23%) and chest (16%) accounted for the most common exposures, with CT abdomen accounting for 46% of overall cohort RE. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing evaluation and liver transplantation at our center are exposed to very high levels of ionizing radiation. Although long-term effects in these patients are yet to be defined, the theoretical increased risk of malignancy must be given its due consideration. Routine use of nonradiation imaging and reconsideration of indications may be preferred and justified in this population.

Tracheobronchoplasty: Indications and Best Approaches.

Tracheobronchomalacia (TBM) is an increasingly recognized abnormality of the central airways in patients with respiratory symptoms. Severe TBM in symptomatic patients warrants screening dynamic CT of the chest and/or awake dynamic bronchoscopy. The goal of surgical repair is to restore the C-shaped configuration of the airway lumen and splint or secure the lax posterior membrane to the mesh to ameliorate symptoms. Robotic tracheobronchoplasty is safe and associated with improvements in pulmonary function and subjective improvement in quality of life.

Improvement in postoperative lung function in patients with moderate to severe airway obstruction after robotic-assisted thoracoscopic tracheobronchoplasty.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to examine pulmonary function and quality of life improvement after robotic-assisted thoracoscopic tracheobronchoplasty for patients with different degrees of obstructive airway disease. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospective database of patients who underwent robotic-assisted thoracoscopic tracheobronchoplasty between 2013 and 2020. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients underwent robotic-assisted thoracoscopic tracheobronchoplasty. Preoperative and postoperative pulmonary function tests were available for 108 patients. Postoperative pulmonary function tests at a median of 16 months demonstrated a significant increase in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (preoperative median: 76.76% predicted, postoperative: 83% predicted, P = .002). Preoperative and postoperative St George Respiratory Questionnaires were available for 64 patients with a significant decrease in postoperative score at a median of 7 months (preoperative median: 61, postoperative: 41.60, P < .001). When stratified by preoperative degree of obstruction, robotic-assisted thoracoscopic tracheobronchoplasty improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second in moderate to very severe obstruction with a statistically significant improvement in moderate (preoperative median: 63.91% predicted, postoperative median: 73% predicted, P = .001) and severe (preoperative median: 44% predicted, postoperative median: 57% predicted, P = .007) obstruction. St George Respiratory Questionnaire scores improved for all patients. Improvement for mild (preoperative median: 61.27, postoperative median: 36.71, P < .001) and moderate (preoperative median: 57.15, postoperative median: 47.52, P = .03) obstruction was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted thoracoscopic tracheobronchoplasty improves obstruction and symptoms. With limited follow-up, subgroup analysis showed forced expiratory volume in 1 second improved in severe preoperative obstruction and quality of life improved in moderate obstruction. Future follow-up is required to determine robotic-assisted thoracoscopic tracheobronchoplasty effects on the most severe group, but we cannot conclude that increased degree of preoperative obstruction precludes surgery.

Robotic-assisted tracheobronchoplasty: Quality of life and pulmonary function assessment on intermediate follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: The initial description of robotic tracheobronchoplasty for the treatment of tracheobronchomalacia demonstrated feasibility, safety, and short-term symptomatic and functional improvement. The purpose of the current study was to demonstrate intermediate outcomes in postoperative pulmonary function and quality of life after robotic tracheobronchoplasty. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected clinical data from 42 patients who underwent robotic tracheobronchoplasty from May 2016 to December 2017. The Institutional Review Board or equivalent ethics committee of the Northwell Health approved the study protocol and publication of data. Patient written consent for the publication of the study data was waived by the Institutional Review Board. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients underwent robotic tracheobronchoplasty during the study period. Median total follow-up is 40 months. There was 1 death since surgery from an unrelated disease. Significant decreases in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score (preoperative mean: 64.01, postoperative mean: 38.91, P = .002), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire symptom score (preoperative median: 82.6, postoperative median: 43.99, P < .001), and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire impact score (preoperative median: 55.78, postoperative median: 25.95, P < .001) were apparent at a median follow-up of 13 months. Comparison of preoperative and postoperative pulmonary function tests revealed a significant increase in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (preoperative median: 74% vs postoperative median: 82%, P = .001), forced vital capacity (preoperative median: 68.5% vs postoperative median: 80.63%, P < .001), and peak expiratory flow (preoperative median: 61.5% vs postoperative median: 75%, P = .02) measured at a median follow-up of 29 months. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic tracheobronchoplasty is associated with low intermediate-term mortality. Robotic tracheobronchoplasty results in significant improvement in quality of life and postoperative pulmonary function. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to continue to elucidate the effect of robotic tracheobronchoplasty on halting pathologic progression of tracheobronchomalacia and to determine the long-term impact of tracheobronchoplasty on symptomatic and functional improvement.

Thoracic aortic dissection associated with involvement by small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a possible underappreciated risk factor?

We report a case of a 77-year-old man with small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia (SLL/CLL) thought to be in remission who developed an acute type A thoracic aortic dissection despite no known risk factors for aortic dissection. Surgical pathology evaluation of the aorta specimen removed at surgery showed direct lymphocytic infiltration of the aortic adventitia and media in the region of the aortic dissection. The potential causative role and pathophysiologic mechanisms of SLL/CLL in aortic dissection are discussed.

Cardiac Surgery After Extraanatomic Esophageal Reconstruction: A Single Institution's Experience.

BACKGROUND: Extraanatomic retrosternal and presternal esophageal reconstruction performed after esophagectomy poses a significant technical challenge to those patients who require cardiac surgery. This study reviewed a single-center experience with cardiac surgical procedures in patients with extraanatomic esophageal conduits, to examine the relative advantages of median sternotomy and thoracotomy approaches. METHODS: This case series identified patients who underwent cardiac surgery after extraanatomic esophageal reconstruction between January 1, 1999 and October 1, 2019 at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, surgical indications, characteristics, and outcomes. Continuous variables were reported as the mean or as the median and range, as appropriate. RESULTS: Seven individual patients had 8 cardiac surgical procedures after extraanatomic esophageal reconstruction (5 retrosternal, 2 presternal). All were male, with a median age of 65.5 years (range, 51 to 71 years). Preoperative computed tomography was obtained in all but 1 patient. Median sternotomy was performed in 4 patients, left thoracotomy in 2, right thoracotomy in 1, and right anterior thoracotomy in 1. Median bypass time was 91 minutes (interquartile range, 113.5 minutes). The median cross-clamp time was 57.5 minutes (interquartile range, 27.0 minutes). There was 1 delayed injury to a retrosternal conduit after median sternotomy approach. There were no injuries to the blood supply of any conduit. In-hospital mortality was 0%. The median length of stay was 7.5 days (range, 5 to 34 days). CONCLUSIONS: Different cardiac surgical procedures can be performed safely in patients with extraanatomic esophageal reconstructions through median sternotomy or thoracotomy. Preoperative planning with computed tomography with intravenous contrast enhancement of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis is essential for individualization of the surgical approach.

Adjuvant Therapy for Node-Positive Esophageal Cancer After Induction and Surgery: A Multisite Study.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of adjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer patients with positive lymph nodes after induction therapy and esophagectomy is uncertain. This in-depth multicenter study assessed the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study from 9 institutions included patients who received neoadjuvant treatment, underwent esophagectomy from 2000 to 2014, and had positive lymph nodes on pathology. Factors associated with administration of adjuvant therapy were assessed using multilevel random-intercept modeling to account for institutional variation in practice. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed based on adjuvant treatment status. Variables associated with survival were identified using Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: The study analyzed 1082 patients with node-positive cancer after induction therapy and esophagectomy: 209 (19.3%) received adjuvant therapy and 873 (80.7%) did not. Administration of adjuvant treatment varied significantly from 3.2% to 50.0% between sites (P < .001). Accounting for institution effect, factors associated with administration of adjuvant therapy included clinically positive and negative prognostic characteristics: younger age, higher pathologic stage, pathologic grade, no neoadjuvant radiotherapy nonsmoking status, and absence of postoperative infection. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed patients receiving adjuvant therapy had a longer median survival of 2.6 years vs 2.3 years (P = .02). Cox modeling identified adjuvant treatment as independently associated with improved survival, with a 24% reduction in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy was associated with improved overall survival. Therefore, consideration should be given to administration of adjuvant therapy to esophageal cancer patients who have persistent node-positive disease after induction therapy and esophagectomy and are able to tolerate additional treatment.