Esophageal Perforation: Is Surgery Still Necessary?

Esophageal perforation is a rare but fatal disease process that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment. Surgery has historically been required for treatment; however, there is currently a shift toward endoscopic management. Although no randomized controlled trials exist to compare patient outcomes, many case series and systematic analyses describe their indications, efficacy, and safety profile. Endoscopic stenting and endoscopic vacuum therapy are the 2 therapies most widely described across a diverse patient population and appear to be safe and effective when treating esophageal perforation, in the proper clinical setting. Guidelines and scoring systems exist to help direct management and stratify patient risk.

Robotic Lobectomy.

Robotic lobectomy volume in the United States has increased dramatically in the past 10 years. Improved perioperative outcomes and increased public demand for minimally invasive techniques continue to drive its popularity. Preoperative workup is similar to VATs lobectomy and includes appropriate tumor staging, pulmonary function tests, and imaging. Severe intraoperative complications are rare but can be catastrophic; individualized response to each is required.

How Much Do Nurses Know About Residents?

Nurses work closely with residents on a daily basis but may not understand the details about residency training and experience. We investigated our institution to understand misconceptions nurses may have about residents and provide education. Nurses (n = 26) participated in a lecture about residents and were given identical surveys before and after the lecture. Twenty-two nurses (85%) were medical/surgical, 1 (4%) was obstetrical, and 3 (11%) were critical care. In the pre-education survey, nurses were able to correctly identify the main purpose of residency as educational. Most nurses knew that residents arrived at the hospital between 5:00 and 7:00 am and that residents could perform bedside procedures. A marked increase was found between correct pre- and post-survey answers in 4 questions: interns are doctors (15% vs. 77%), residents' work hours (23% vs. 65%), correct average salary (39% vs. 92%), and correct paid time off (PTO) days per year (8% vs. 85%). Salaries were overestimated, and work hours and PTO were underestimated. Most nurses did not know interns are in fact doctors. Our post-educational survey demonstrated improved knowledge of resident credentials, challenges, and work environment. The mean result for the post-educational survey was significantly higher than the pre-educational survey results, indicating that the educational intervention was effective in improving nurses' knowledge regarding residents.

Trends in Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Many breast cancer patients remove their contralateral breast unaffected by cancer, commonly referred to as contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). CPM has been extensively studied and does not improve survival in patients without deleterious genetic mutation or lobular histology. Despite these limited indications, CPM rates have increased recently. We observed CPM trends in our county safety-net hospital. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of women treated for breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy in our institution. RESULTS: We analyzed 100 CPMs: 51% (n = 51) had bilateral breast MRI before CPM, 54% (n = 54) had genetic testing prior to CPM, and 56% (n = 30) had a deleterious genetic result. Another 12% (n = 12) had lobular histology as the primary determinant for CPM. Of patients without genetic mutation or lobular histology, 13% (n = 13) had suspicious MRI findings in the CPM side that drove the decision for CPM. Forty-seven percent (n = 47) had reconstructive surgery documented. CONCLUSION: Only 42% (n = 42) of patients who underwent CPM had a documented justifiable medical reason. In the future, physician and patient education may decrease unindicated CPM. We also found that 13% of women without a medical indication chose CPM based on suspicious MRI findings, while only 8% of these MRI findings were malignant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Outcomes of infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia treated with venovenous versus venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A propensity score approach.

PURPOSE: Previous studies comparing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) modality for congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) have not accounted for confounding by indication. We therefore hypothesized that using a propensity score (PS) approach to account for selection bias may identify outcome differences based on ECMO modality for infants with CDH. METHODS: We utilized ELSO Registry data (2000-2016). Patients with CDH were divided to either venoarterial (VA) or venovenous (VV) ECMO. Patients were matched by PS to control for nonrandom treatment assignment. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on timing of CDH repair relative to ECMO. Primary analysis was the "intent-to-treat" cohort based on the initial ECMO mode. Mortality was the primary outcome, and severe neurologic injury (SNI) was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: PS matching (3:1) identified 3304 infants (VA = 2470, VV = 834). In the main group, mortality was not different between VA and VV ECMO (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.18) and there was no difference in SNI between VA and VV (OR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.63-1.01). For the pre-ECMO CDH repair subgroup, 175 VA cases were matched to 70 VV. In these neonates, mortality was higher for VV compared to VA (OR = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.19-3.69), without any difference in SNI (OR = 1.48; 95% CI: 0.59-3.71). For the subgroup that did not have pre-ECMO CDH repair, 2030 VA cases were matched to 683 VV cases. In this subgroup, VV was associated with 27% lower risk of SNI relative to VA (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.56-0.95) without any difference in mortality (OR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.79-1.11). CONCLUSION: This study revalidates that ECMO mode does not significantly affect mortality or SNI in infants with CDH. In the subset of infants who require pre-ECMO CDH repair, VA favors survival, whereas, in the subgroup of infants that did not have pre-ECMO CDH repair, VV favors lower rates of SNI. We conclude that neither mode appears consistently superior across all situations, and clinical judgment should remain a multifactorial decision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.