Building a Large Robotic Thoracic Surgery Program in an Emerging Country: Experience in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: In the last decade, robotic video-assisted thoracic surgery (R-VATS) has grown significantly and consolidated as an alternative to video-assisted thoracic surgery. The objective of this study is to present the implementation as well as the experience with R-VATS accumulated by 2 Brazilian groups. We also compared the outcomes of procedures performed during the learning curve and after a more mature experience. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study included all R-VATS procedures performed since April 2015 until April 2018. We describe the process of implantation of robotic surgery, highlighting the peculiarities and difficulties found in a developing country. Moreover, we reported our descriptive results and compared the first 60 patients to the subsequent cases. RESULTS: Two hundred and five patients included 101 females/104 males. Mean age was 61.7 years. There were hundred and sixty-four pulmonary resections, 39 resections of mediastinal lesions, 1 diaphragmatic plication, and 1 resection of a hilar tumor. Median operative times were 205 min for lung resections and 129 min for mediastinal. There was no conversion to VATS or thoracotomy or major intraoperative complications. Median length of stay was 3 days for pulmonary resections and 1 day for mediastinal. Postoperative complications occurred in 35 cases (17.0%)-prolonged air leak was the most common (17 cases). One fatality occurred in an elderly patient with pneumonia and sepsis (0.4%). Comparison of the first 60 patients (learning curve) with subsequent 145 patients (consolidated experience) showed significant differences in surgical and ICU time, both favoring consolidated experience. CONCLUSIONS: Our results were comparable to the literature. Robotic thoracic surgery can be safely and successfully implemented in tertiary hospitals in emerging countries provided that all stakeholders are involved and compromised with the implementation process.

Quality of life outcomes after minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum utilizing a new set of metallic bars and stabilizers.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the postoperative quality of life (QoL) of patients who underwent minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE) with a newly designed bar and bar stabilizers. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized study in which patients were operated either with standard perpendicular stabilizers (control group) or with the newly designed oblique stabilizers (intervention group). All patients were evaluated 6 months after the operation with the Pectus Excavatum Evaluation Questionnaire (PEEQ). RESULTS: There were 16 patients in the control group and 14 in the intervention group. Mean age was 17 (SD: 3.3, range 14-27) years. There were no demographic differences between groups. Two patients in the control group and one in the intervention group were repaired with two bars instead of one. There was one reoperation in each group. There was a significant difference between the pre- and postoperative scores, in both groups, in the patient body image domain (control group: 9.5 to 3; p < 0.01; intervention group 10 to 3; p < 0.01), as well as in the psychosocial domain (control group: 13.5 to 24, p < 0.01; intervention group: 15 to 24, p < 0.01). With regards to the patients' perception of physical difficulties before and after MIRPE, the difference between pre- and postoperative scores was greater in the intervention group (8 to 12, p < 0.01) than in the control group (10 to 11, p = 0.04). The mean length of stay was 4.5 and 5 days in the intervention group and the control group, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that patients who underwent MIRPE with the newly designed bars and stabilizers had non-inferior outcomes than patients reported in the literature who underwent MIRPE with standard bars and stabilizers. We found slightly better outcomes in patients in the intervention group compared to the control group, but larger studies will be needed to confirm if those differences are statistically significant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.