Thoracic Surgical Oncology: Maintaining a High-Volume Surgical Program During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Thoracic surgical oncology is a time-sensitive, high-resource, complex surgical speciality to which coronavirus has posed a unique challenge. In response to the evolving situation in mainland Europe, our department rapidly established a coronavirus disease 2019-free site to maintain elective cancer surgery. This necessitated a strict admission pathway and perioperative patient management. It resulted in the maintenance of a high-volume, high-quality thoracic surgical oncology program with no coronavirus disease 2019-positive cases to date. Maintaining satisfactory training levels among surgical and anesthetic trainees has also been achieved. We suggest that this model could be adapted to local resource capabilities.

Preoperative exercise to improve fitness in patients undergoing complex surgery for cancer of the lung or oesophagus (PRE-HIIT): protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer of the lung or oesophagus, undergoing curative treatment, usually require a thoracotomy and a complex oncological resection. These surgeries carry a risk of major morbidity and mortality, and risk assessment, preoperative optimisation, and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are modern approaches to optimise outcomes. Pre-operative fitness is an established predictor of postoperative outcome, accordingly, targeting pre-operative fitness through exercise prehabilitation has logical appeal. Exercise prehabilitation is challenging to implement however due to the short opportunity for intervention between diagnosis and surgery. Therefore, individually prescribed, intensive exercise training protocols which convey clinically meaningful improvements in cardiopulmonary fitness over a short period need to be investigated. This project will examine the influence of exercise prehabilitation on physiological outcomes and postoperative recovery and, through evaluation of health economics, the impact of the programme on hospital costs. METHODS: The PRE-HIIT Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) will compare a 2-week high intensity interval training (HIIT) programme to standard preoperative care in a cohort of thoracic and oesophageal patients who are > 2-weeks pre-surgery. A total of 78 participants will be recruited (39 per study arm). The primary outcome is cardiorespiratory fitness. Secondary outcomes include, measures of pulmonary and physical and quality of life. Outcomes will be measured at baseline (T0), and post-intervention (T1). Post-operative morbidity will also be captured. The impact of PRE-HIIT on well-being will be examined qualitatively with focus groups/interviews post-intervention (T1). Participant's experience of preparation for surgery on the PRE-HIIT trial will also be explored. The healthcare costs associated with the PRE-HITT programme, in particular acute hospital costs, will also be examined. DISCUSSION: The overall aim of this RCT is to examine the effect of tailored, individually prescribed high intensity interval training aerobic exercise on pre-operative fitness and postoperative recovery for patients undergoing complex surgical resections, and the impact on use of health services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with Clinical Trials.Gov (NCT03978325). Registered on 7th June 2019.

Outcomes of minimally invasive lung transplantation in a single centre: the routine approach for the future or do we still need clamshell incision?

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive lung transplantation (MILT) via bilateral anterior thoracotomies has emerged as a novel surgical strategy with potential patient benefits when compared with transverse thoracosternotomy (clamshell incision, CS). The aim of this study is to compare MILT with CS by focusing on operative characteristics, postoperative organ function and support and mid-term clinical outcomes at Harefield Hospital. METHODS: It was a retrospective observational study evaluating all bilateral sequential lung transplants between April 2010 and November 2013. RESULTS: CS was performed in 124 patients and MILT in 70 patients. Skin-to-skin surgical time was less in the MILT group [285 (265, 339) min] compared with CS [380 (306, 565) min] and MILT-cardiopulmonary bypass [426 (360, 478) min]. Ischaemic time was significantly longer (502 ± 116 vs 395 ± 145 min) in the MILT group compared with CS (P < 0.01). Early postoperative physiological variables were similar between groups. Patients in the MILT group required less blood [2 (0, 4) vs 3 (1, 5) units, P = 0.16] and platelet transfusion [0 (0, 1) vs 1 (0, 2) units, P < 0.01]. The median duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter (26 vs 44 h, P < 0.01) and intensive therapy unit stay was 2 days shorter (5 vs 7) in the MILT group. While overall survival was similar, fraction of expired volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were consistently higher in the MILT group compared with CS during mid-term follow-up after transplantation. Specifically, FEV1 and FVC were, respectively, 86 ± 21 and 88 ± 18% predicted in the MILT group compared with 74 ± 21 and 74 ± 19% predicted in the CS group (P < 0.01) at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: MILT was successfully introduced at our centre as a novel operative strategy. Despite longer ischaemic times and a more complex operation and management, MILT appears to offer early postoperative and mid-term clinical benefits compared with our traditional approach of clamshell operations. These observations warrant larger definite studies to further evaluate the impact of MILT on physiological, clinical and patient-reported outcomes.