Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Postoperative Outcomes in a Nationwide Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in clinical trials has demonstrated improved outcomes compared to open esophagectomy (OE). However, outcomes after national implementation remain unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate postoperative outcomes after RAMIE. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective esophagectomy between 2016 and 2020 were identified from the American College of Surgeons-- National Surgical Quality Improvement Program esophageal targeted participant user files and categorized by operative approach, with patients who underwent hybrid procedures excluded. Outcomes were compared between OE and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE)/RAMIE, with subset analyses by minimally invasive operative approach. Primary outcomes included pulmonary complications, anastomotic leak requiring reintervention, all-cause morbidity, and 30-d mortality. RESULTS: In total 2786 patients were included, of which 58.3% underwent OE, 33.2% underwent MIE, and 8.4% underwent RAMIE. In the entire cohort, Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was the most common technique (64.6%), followed by transhiatal (22.0%), and a McKeown technique (13.4%). Comparing OE and MIE/RAMIE, pulmonary complications (21.5% versus 16.1%, P < 0.01) and all-cause morbidity (40.9% versus 32.3%, P < 0.01) were both reduced in the MIE/RAMIE group. When directly comparing MIE to RAMIE, there was no difference in the rate of pulmonary complications, anastomotic leak, all-cause morbidity, and mortality. However, RAMIE was associated with decreased all-cause morbidity compared to OE (40.9% versus 33.3%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: RAMIE was associated with decreased morbidity compared to OE, with similar outcomes to MIE. The national adoption of RAMIE in this select cohort appears safe.

Five-year incidence of substance use and mental health diagnoses following exposure to opioids or opioids with benzodiazepines during an emergency department encounter for traumatic injury.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines and opioids are used alone or in conjunction in certain care settings, but each have the potential for misuse. OBJECTIVE: This longitudinal observational study evaluated substance use and mental health outcomes associated with providing opioids with or without benzodiazepine to treat traumatic injury in the emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: We analyzed a limited dataset obtained through the IBM Watson Health Explorys. Matched cohorts were defined for: 1) patients treated with opioids during the ED encounter (ED-Opioid) vs. neither opioid or benzodiazepine treatment (No medication) (n = 5372); 2) patients treated with opioids and benzodiazepines during the ED encounter (ED-Opioid+Benzodiazepines) vs. No Medication (n = 2454); and 3) ED-Opioid+Benzodiazepines vs. ED-Opioid (n = 2454). Patients consisted of adults with an emergency department encounter in the MetroHealth System (Cleveland, Ohio) with a chief complaint of traumatic injury and medical records for five years following the encounter. Control patients for each cohort were matched to the exposure patients on demographics, body mass index, and residential zip code median income. Outcomes were five-year incidence rates for alcohol, substance use, depression, and anxiety-related diagnoses. RESULTS: Our results indicate that, although receiving opioids during the ED visit predicted a relatively lower likelihood of subsequent substance use and mental health diagnoses, the brief co-use of benzodiazepines was strongly associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Even brief exposure to co-prescribed opioids and benzodiazepines during emergency traumatic injury care may be associated with negative substance use and mental health consequences in the years following the event.