Sternal resection and reconstruction: a review.

Sternal resection and reconstruction is a rare but sometimes challenging procedure due to its profound anatomical and functional implications. For these reasons, an adequate preoperative evaluation is crucial in each patient, especially when we are faced with malignant lesions that sometimes require extensive radical resections, thus demanding an integrated reconstructive strategy that allows stabilizing the chest wall, protecting the underlying mediastinum and minimize resulting deformity. The large number of available reconstruction techniques and the lack of quality studies for their analysis mean that sternal reconstruction depends to a great extent on the consensus of experts or, more frequently, on the simple preference of each surgical team. This article aims to provide an overview of sternal resection and reconstruction. Indications for partial versus total or subtotal sternectomy are suggested and their surgical and oncological outcomes are presented. The use of rigid or semi-rigid prostheses is an ongoing debate, although recent functional data advise reserving rigid reconstructions for extensive defects. Sternectomy for primary tumors or local tumor involvement has a good prognosis with an overall survival of 5 and 10 years: 67% and 58%, respectively, provided that a radical resection with free surgical margins is performed. Breast cancer is the most common secondary sternal tumor, and surgery can offer 5-year overall survival ranging from 20% to 50% provided an R0 resection is achieved, although radical surgery does not appear to decrease rates. of recurrence. Metastases of origin other than the breast give the worst results (less than 40% at 36 months and 0% at 5 years) and although the data available on these cases are limited, the radicality of the resection does not seem to modify the survival or recurrence rates, so a conservative approach is probably more appropriate.

Autologous mesenchymal stromal cells embedded with Tissucol Duo® for prevention of air leak after anatomical lung resection: results of a prospective phase I/II clinical trial with long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged air leak (PAL) is the most frequent complication after pulmonary resection. Several measures have been described to prevent the occurrence of PAL in high-risk patients, however, the potential role of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) applied in the parenchymal suture line to prevent postoperative air leak in this setting has not been fully addressed. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the feasibility, safety and potential clinical efficacy of the implantation of autologous MSCs embedded in Tissucol Duo® as a prophylactic alternative to prevent postoperative prolonged air leak after pulmonary resection in high-risk patients. STUDY DESIGN: Phase I/II single-arm prospective clinical trial. METHODS: Six patients with high risk of PAL undergoing elective pulmonary resection were included. Autologous bone marrow-derived MSCs were expanded at our Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) Facility and implanted (embedded in a Tissucol Duo® carrier) in the parenchymal suture line during pulmonary resection surgery. Patients were monitored in the early postoperative period and evaluated for possible complications or adverse reactions. In addition, all patients were followed-up to 5 years for clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The median age of patients included was 66 years (range: 55-70 years), and male/female ratio was 5/1. Autologous MSCs were expanded in five cases, in one case MSCs expansion was insufficient. There were no adverse effects related to cell implantation. Regarding efficacy, median air leak duration was 0 days (range: 0-2 days). The incidence of PAL was nil. Radiologically, only one patient presented pneumothorax in the chest X-ray at discharge. No adverse effects related to the procedure were recorded during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The use of autologous MSCs for prevention of PAL in patients with high risk of PAL is feasible, safe and potentially effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NO: EudraCT: 2013-000535-27. CLINICALTRIALS: gov idenfier: NCT02045745.

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique.

Background: Existing reporting guidelines pay insufficient attention to the detail and comprehensiveness reporting of surgical technique. The Surgical techniqUe rePorting chEcklist and standaRds (SUPER) aims to address this gap by defining reporting standards for surgical technique. The SUPER guideline intends to apply to articles that encompass surgical technique in any study design, surgical discipline, and stage of surgical innovation. Methods: Following the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach, 16 surgeons, journal editors, and methodologists reviewed existing reporting guidelines relating to surgical technique, reviewed papers from 15 top journals, and brainstormed to draft initial items for the SUPER. The initial items were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from 21 multidisciplinary Delphi panel experts from 13 countries and regions. The final SUPER items were formed after an online consensus meeting to resolve disagreements and a three-round wording refinement by all 16 SUPER working group members and five SUPER consultants. Results: The SUPER reporting guideline includes 22 items that are considered essential for good and informative surgical technique reporting. The items are divided into six sections: background, rationale, and objectives (items 1 to 5); preoperative preparations and requirements (items 6 to 9); surgical technique details (items 10 to 15); postoperative considerations and tasks (items 16 to 19); summary and prospect (items 20 and 21); and other information (item 22). Conclusions: The SUPER reporting guideline has the potential to guide detailed, comprehensive, and transparent surgical technique reporting for surgeons. It may also assist journal editors, peer reviewers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers in the evaluation of surgical technique papers and help practitioners to better understand and reproduce surgical technique. Trial Registration: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#SUPER.

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique: explanation and elaboration.

Background: Surgical technique plays an essential role in achieving good health outcomes. However, the quality of surgical technique reporting remains heterogeneous. Reporting checklists could help authors to describe the surgical technique more transparently and effectively, as well as to assist reviewers and editors evaluate it more informatively, and promote readers to better understand the technique. We previously developed SUPER (surgical technique reporting checklist and standards) to assist authors in reporting their research that contains surgical technique more transparently. However, further explanation and elaboration of each item are needed for better understanding and reporting practice. Methods: We searched surgical literature in PubMed, Google Scholar and journal websites published up to January 2023 to find multidiscipline examples in various article types for each SUPER item. Results: We explain the 22 items of the SUPER and provide rationales item by item alongside. We provide 69 examples from 53 literature that present optimal reporting of the 22 items. Article types of examples include pure surgical technique, and case reports, observational studies and clinical trials that contain surgical technique. Examples are multidisciplinary, including general surgery, orthopaedical surgery, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, gastrointestinal surgery, neurological surgery, oncogenic surgery, and emergency surgery etc. Conclusions: Along with SUPER article, this explanation and elaboration file can promote deeper understanding on the SUPER items. We hope that the article could further guide surgeons and researchers in reporting, and assist editors and peer reviewers in reviewing manuscripts related to surgical technique.

Failure to rescue following anatomical lung resection. Analysis of a prospective nationwide database.

Background: Rescue failure has been described as an important factor that conditions postoperative mortality after surgical interventions. The objective of this study is to determine the incidence and main determinants of failure to rescue after anatomical lung resections. Methods: Prospective multicenter study that included all patients undergoing anatomical pulmonary resection between December 2016 and March 2018 and registered in the Spanish nationwide database GEVATS. Postoperative complications were classified as minor (grades I and II) and major (grades IIIa to V) according to the Clavien-Dindo standardized classification. Patients that died after a major complication were considered rescue failure. A stepwise logistic regression model was created to identify predictors of failure to rescue. Results: 3,533 patients were analyzed. In total, 361 cases (10.2%) had major complications, of which 59 (16.3%) could not be rescued. The variables associated with rescue failure were: ppoDLCO% (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-1; p = 0.067), cardiac comorbidity (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4; p = 0.024), extended resection (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.94-5.41; p = 0.067), pneumonectomy (OR, 2.53; 95 CI, 1.07-6.03; p = 0.036) and hospital volume <120 cases per year (OR, 2.53; CI 95%, 1.26-5.07; p = 0.009). The area under the curve of the ROC curve was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.64-0.79). Conclusion: A significant percentage of patients who presented major complications after anatomical lung resection did not survive to discharge. Pneumonectomy and annual surgical volume are the risk factors most closely related to rescue failure. Complex thoracic surgical pathology should be concentrated in high-volume centers to obtain the best results in potentially high-risk patients.

A Risk Model to Predict the Delivery of Adjuvant Chemotherapy Following Lung Resection in Patients With Pathologically Positive Lymph Nodes.

To investigate factors associated with the ability to receive adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with pathological N1 and N2 stage after anatomic lung resections for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Multicenter retrospective analysis on 707 consecutive patients found pathologic N1 (pN1) or N2 (pN2) disease following anatomic lung resections for NSCLC (2014-2019). Multiple imputation logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with adjuvant chemotherapy and to develop a model to predict the probability of starting this treatment. The model was externally validated in a population of 253 patients. In the derivation set, 442 patients were pN1 and 265 pN2. 58% received at least 1 cycle of adjuvant chemotherapy. The variables significantly associated with the probability of starting chemotherapy after multivariable regression analysis were: younger age (p < 0.0001), Body Mass Index (BMI) (p = 0.031), Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV1) (p = 0.037), better performance status (PS) (p < 0.0001), absence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) (p = 0.016), resection lesser than pneumonectomy (p = 0.010). The logit of the prediction model was: 6.58 -0.112 x age +0.039 x BMI +0.009 x FEV1 -0.650 x PS -1.388 x CKD -0.550 x pneumonectomy. The predicted rate of adjuvant chemotherapy in the validation set was 59.2 and similar to the observed 1 (59%, p = 0.87) confirming the model performance in external setting. This study identified several factors associated with the probability of initiating adjuvant chemotherapy after lung resection in node-positive patients. This information can be used during preoperative multidisciplinary meetings and patients counseling to support decision-making process regarding the timing of systemic treatment.

Operating time: an independent and modifiable risk factor for short-term complications after video-thoracoscopic pulmonary lobectomy.

OBJECTIVES: The relationship between operating time and postoperative morbidity has not been fully characterized in lung resection surgery. We aimed to determine the variables associated with prolonged operative times and their influence on postoperative complications after video-thoracoscopic lobectomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer from December 2016 to March 2018, within the prospective registry of the Spanish Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Group were identified. Operating time was stratified by quartiles and complication rates analysed using chi-squared test. Primary outcomes included 30-day overall, pulmonary and cardiovascular complications and wound infection. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify variables independently associated with operating time and their influence on the occurrence of postoperative complications. RESULTS: Data of 1518 cases were examined. The median operating time was 174 min (interquartile range: 130-210 min). Overall morbidity rates significantly increased with surgical duration (20.5% vs 34.4% in the 1st and 4th quartiles, respectively, P < 0.05) and so did pulmonary complications (14.6% vs 26.4% in the 1st and 4th quartiles, respectively, P < 0.05). Differences were not found regarding cardiovascular and wound complications. After multivariable logistic regression analysis, operating time remained as an independent risk factor for overall (odds ratios, 2.05) and pulmonary complications (odds ratios, 2.01). Male sex, predicted postoperative diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, number of lymphatic stations harvested, pleural adhesions, fissures completeness, lobectomy site, surgeon seniority, individual video-thoracoscopic surgeon experience and fissureless technique were identified as predictive factors for long operative time. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged operating time is associated with increased odds of postoperative complications. Modifiable factors contributing to prolonged operating time may serve as a target for quality improvement.

Similar outcomes after newly implemented rats approach compared to standard vats for anatomical lung resection. A propensity-score matched analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Outcomes after the introduction of surgical innovations can be impaired by learning periods. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term outcomes of a recently implemented RATS approach to a standard VATS program for anatomical lung resections. METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing pulmonary anatomical resection through a minimally invasive approach since RATS approach was applied in our department (June 01, 2018, to November 30, 2019). Propensity score matching was performed according to patients' age, gender, ppoFEV1, cardiac comorbidity, type of malignancy, and type of resection. Outcome evaluation includes: overall morbidity, significant complications (cardiac arrhythmia, pneumonia, prolonged air leak, and reoperation), 30-day mortality, and length of hospital stay. Data were compared by two-sided chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 273 patients (206 VATS, 67 RATS) were included in the study. After propensity score matching, data of 132 patients were analyzed. The thirty-days mortality was nil. Overall morbidity (RATS: 22.4%, VATS: 29.2%; p=0.369), major complications (RATS: 9% vs VATS: 9.2%; p=0.956) and the rates of specific major complications (cardiac arrhythmia RATS: 4.5%, VATS: 4.6%, p=1; pneumonia RATS:0%, VATS:4.6%, p=0.117; prolonged air leak RATS: 7.5%; VATS: 4.6%, p=0.718) and reoperation (RATS: 3%, VATS: 1.5%, p=1) were comparable between both groups. The median length of stay was 3 days in both groups (p=0.101). CONCLUSIONS: A RATS program for anatomical lung resection can be implemented safely by experienced VATS surgeons without increasing morbidity rates.

"Obesity paradox" has not an impact on minimally invasive anatomical lung resection.

INTRODUCTION: The paradoxical benefit of obesity, the 'obesity paradox', has been analyzed in lung surgical populations with contradictory results. Our goal was assessing the relationship of body mass index (BMI) to acute outcomes after minimally invasive major pulmonary resections. METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent pulmonary anatomical resection through a minimally invasive approach for the period 2014-2019. Patients were grouped as underweight, normal, overweight and obese type I, II and III. Adjusted odds ratios regarding postoperative complications (overall, respiratory, cardiovascular and surgical morbidity) were produced with their exact 95% confidence intervals. All tests were considered statistically significant at p<0.05. RESULTS: Among 722 patients included in the study, 37.7% had a normal BMI and 61.8% were overweight or obese patients. When compared with that of normal BMI patients, adjusted pulmonary complications were significantly higher in obese type I patients (2.6% vs 10.6%, OR: 4.53 [95%CI: 1.86-12.11]) and obese type II-III (2.6% vs 10%, OR: 6.09 [95%CI: 1.38-26.89]). No significant differences were found regarding overall, cardiovascular or surgical complications among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity has not favourable effects on early outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive anatomical lung resections, since the risk of respiratory complications in patients with BMI≥30kg/m2 and BMI≥35kg/m2 is 4.5 and 6 times higher than that of patients with normal BMI.

Surgical Risk Following Anatomic Lung Resection in Thoracic Surgery: A Prediction Model Derived from a Spanish Multicenter Database. / Riesgo quirúrgico tras resección pulmonar anatómica en cirugía torácica. Modelo predictivo a partir de una base de datos nacional multicéntrica.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to develop a surgical risk prediction model in patients undergoing anatomic lung resections from the registry of the Spanish Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Group (GEVATS). METHODS: Data were collected from 3,533 patients undergoing anatomic lung resection for any diagnosis between December 20, 2016 and March 20, 2018. We defined a combined outcome variable: death or Clavien Dindo grade IV complication at 90 days after surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by logistic regression. Internal validation of the model was performed using resampling techniques. RESULTS: The incidence of the outcome variable was 4.29% (95% CI 3.6-4.9). The variables remaining in the final logistic model were: age, sex, previous lung cancer resection, dyspnea (mMRC), right pneumonectomy, and ppo DLCO. The performance parameters of the model adjusted by resampling were: C-statistic 0.712 (95% CI 0.648-0.750), Brier score 0.042 and bootstrap shrinkage 0.854. CONCLUSIONS: The risk prediction model obtained from the GEVATS database is a simple, valid, and reliable model that is a useful tool for establishing the risk of a patient undergoing anatomic lung resection.

The robotic surgery learning curve of a surgeon experienced in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery compared with his own video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery learning curve for anatomical lung resections.

OBJECTIVES: Robotic surgery, although it shares some technical features with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), offers some advantages, such as ergonomic design and a 3-dimensional view. Thus, the learning curve for robotic lung resection could be expected to be shorter than that of VATS for surgeons who are proficient in VATS. The goal of this study was to analyse the robotic learning curve of a VATS experienced surgeon and to compare it to his own VATS learning curve for anatomical lung resections. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study based on the prospectively recorded data of the first 150 anatomical lung resections performed with VATS (75 cases) and with the robotic (75 cases) approach by the same surgeon in our centre. Learning curves were analysed using the cumulative sum method to assess the trends for total operating time and surgical failure (intraoperative complications, conversion, technical postoperative complications and reintervention) across case sequences. Subsequently, using adequate statistical tests, we compared the postoperative outcomes in both groups. RESULTS: The median operating time was similar for both approaches (P = 0.401). Surgical failure rate was higher for the robotic cases (21.3% vs 12%; P = 0.125). Based on cumulative sum analyses, operating time decreased starting with case 34 in the VATS group and with case 32 in the robotic cohort. Surgical failure tended to decline starting with case 28 in the VATS group and with case 32 in the robotic group. Perioperative results were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: When we compared robotic and VATS learning curves for anatomical lung resection, we did not find any differences. Postoperative outcomes were also similar with both approaches.

Similar outcomes after newly implemented rats approach compared to standard vats for anatomical lung resection. A propensity-score matched analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Outcomes after the introduction of surgical innovations can be impaired by learning periods. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term outcomes of a recently implemented RATS approach to a standard VATS program for anatomical lung resections. METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing pulmonary anatomical resection through a minimally invasive approach since RATS approach was applied in our department (June 01, 2018, to November 30, 2019). Propensity score matching was performed according to patients' age, gender, ppoFEV1, cardiac comorbidity, type of malignancy, and type of resection. Outcome evaluation includes: overall morbidity, significant complications (cardiac arrhythmia, pneumonia, prolonged air leak, and reoperation), 30-day mortality, and length of hospital stay. Data were compared by two-sided chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 273 patients (206 VATS, 67 RATS) were included in the study. After propensity score matching, data of 132 patients were analyzed. The thirty-days mortality was nil. Overall morbidity (RATS: 22.4%, VATS: 29.2%; p=0.369), major complications (RATS: 9% vs VATS: 9.2%; p=0.956) and the rates of specific major complications (cardiac arrhythmia RATS: 4.5%, VATS: 4.6%, p=1; pneumonia RATS:0%, VATS:4.6%, p=0.117; prolonged air leak RATS: 7.5%; VATS: 4.6%, p=0.718) and reoperation (RATS: 3%, VATS: 1.5%, p=1) were comparable between both groups. The median length of stay was 3 days in both groups (p=0.101). CONCLUSIONS: A RATS program for anatomical lung resection can be implemented safely by experienced VATS surgeons without increasing morbidity rates.