Optimal Approach to Lobectomy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) lobectomy was introduced over 25 years ago. More recently, the technique has been modified from a multiport video-assisted thoracic surgery (mVATS) to uniportal (uVATS) and robotic (rVATS), with proponents for each approach. Additionally most lobectomies are still performed using an open approach. We sought to provide evidence-based recommendations to help define the optimal surgical approach to lobectomy for early stage non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of articles searched without limits from January 2000 to January 2018 comparing open, mVATS, uVATS, and rVATS using sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were considered for inclusion. Articles were individually scrutinized by ISMICS consensus conference members, and evidence-based statements were created and consensus processes were used to determine the ensuing recommendations. The ACC/AHA Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendation Classification system was used to assess the overall quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: One hundred and forty-five studies met the predefined inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Comparisons were analyzed between VATS and open, and between different VATS approaches looking at oncological outcomes (survival, recurrence, lymph node evaluation), safety (adverse events), function (pain, quality of life, pulmonary function), and cost-effectiveness. Fifteen statements addressing these areas achieved consensus. The highest level of evidence suggested that mVATS is preferable to open lobectomy with lower adverse events (36% versus 42%; 88,460 patients) and less pain (IIa recommendation). Our meta-analysis suggested that overall survival was better (IIb) with mVATS compared with open (71.5% versus 66.7% 5-years; 16,200 patients). Different VATS approaches were similar for most outcomes, although uVATS may be associated with less pain and analgesic requirements (IIb). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis supports the role of VATS lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer. Apart from potentially less pain and analgesic requirement with uVATS, different minimally invasive surgical approaches appear to have similar outcomes.

Liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine/epinephrine after video-assisted thoracoscopic wedge resection†.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this research is to compare liposomal bupivacaine and bupivacaine/epinephrine for intercostal blocks related to analgesic use and length of stay following video-assisted thoracoscopic wedge resection. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic wedge resection from 2010 to 2015 was performed. We selected patients who stayed longer than 24 h in hospital. Primary outcomes were length of stay and postoperative analgesic use at 12-h intervals from 24 to 72 h. RESULTS: Intercostal blocks were performed with liposomal bupivacaine in 62 patients and bupivacaine/epinephrine in 51 patients. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test evaluated differences in median postoperative analgesic use and length of stay. Those who received liposomal bupivacaine consumed fewer analgesics than those who received bupivacaine/epinephrine, with a statistically significant difference from 24 to 36 h (20.25 vs 45.0 mg; P = 0.0059) and from 60 to 72 h postoperatively (15.0 vs 33.75 mg; P = 0.0350). In patients who stayed longer than 72 h, the median cumulative analgesic consumption in those who received liposomal bupivacaine was statistically significantly lower than those who received bupivacaine/epinephrine (120.0 vs 296.5 mg; P = 0.0414). Median length of stay for the liposomal bupivacaine and bupivacaine/epinephrine groups were 45:05 h and 44:29 h, respectively. There were no adverse events related to blocks performed with liposomal bupivacaine. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracic surgery patients who have blocks performed with liposomal bupivacaine require fewer analgesics postoperatively. This may decrease complications related to poor pain control and decrease side effects related to narcotic use in our patient population.

Foreign body entrapment during thoracic surgery-time for closed loop communication.

OBJECTIVES: During general thoracic surgery procedures, devices are often placed in the airway and oesophagus. This creates an opportunity for foreign body entrapment (FBE) during pulmonary and foregut surgery. Like retained foreign bodies (RFB), FBE is an entirely preventable event. Unlike RFB, there is minimal literature on FBE, thus little is known about its occurrence, risk factors, and prevention. METHODS: A survey was distributed to 215 surgeons of the General Thoracic Surgical Club. The survey included questions about socio-demographics, procedural volume, occurrence of FBE and factors leading to FBE. RESULTS: There were 110 responses (51%, 110/215). The majority of respondents worked in academic hospitals (75%, 82/110), in urban environments (63%, 69/110), and were male (85%, 94/110). One hundred and four respondents performed pulmonary resections and 92 performed foregut surgeries. In the pulmonary group, 40% (42/104) reported FBE with 67% (23/42) in open procedures. In the foregut group 38% (35/92) reported FBE with 69% (24/35) in open procedures. With both groups combined, 54.5% (60/110) of respondents reported FBE at least once and 29% (24/110) reported more than one FBE in their career. The most frequently reported contributing factor was communication errors between the surgical and anaesthesia teams. CONCLUSIONS: FBE during general thoracic procedures occurs in both minimally invasive and open pulmonary and foregut procedures. The greatest risk factor is communication error. Specific routine closed loop communication with the anaesthesia team prior to stapling/suturing the airway or oesophagus would minimize the risk of FBE.