Emergency Endovascular Total Arch Exclusion With an Off-the-Shelf Bimodular Device

A patient with a history of surgery for type A acute aortic dissection was readmitted for aortic arch and descending aortic dissection with rupture at the isthmus and periaortic hematoma. Due to the high surgical risk, the aortic team chose an endovascular approach, and the patient successfully underwent emergency total arch exclusion with an off-the-shelf, bimodular, single-branch device. The main module was deployed in the aortic arch and in the brachiocephalic trunk, and the second module was deployed in the ascending aorta. Despite the good perioperative outcome with no cerebrovascular events, the patient died 20 days later because of sudden iliac rupture.

Perioperative Outcome of Robotic Approach Versus Manual Videothoracoscopic Major Resection in Patients Affected by Early Lung Cancer: Results of a Randomized Multicentric Study (ROMAN Study)

IntroductionWe report the results of the first prospective international randomized control trial to compare the perioperative outcome and surgical radicality of the robotic approach with those of traditional video-assisted surgery in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer.MethodsPatients with clinical stage T1–T2, N0–N1 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) or video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) resection arms. The primary objective was the incidence of adverse events including complications and conversion to thoracotomy. The secondary objectives included extent of lymph node (LN) dissection and other indicators.ResultsThis trial was closed at 83 cases as the probability of concluding in favor of the robot arm for the primary outcome was null according to the observed trend. In this study, we report the results of the analysis conducted on the patients enrolled until trial suspension. Thirty-nine cases were randomized in the VATS arm and 38 in the robotic arm. Six patients were excluded from analysis. Despite finding no difference between the two arms in perioperative complications, conversions, duration of surgery, or duration of postoperative stay, a significantly greater degree of LN assessment by the robotic technique was observed in regards to the median number of sampled LN stations [6, interquartile range (IQR) 4–6 vs. 4, IQR 3–5; p = 0.0002], hilar LNs (7, IQR 5–10 vs. 4, IQR 2–7; p = 0.0003), and mediastinal LNs (7, IQR 5–10 vs. 5, IQR 3–7; p = 0.0001).ConclusionsThe results of this trial demonstrated that RATS was not superior to VATS considering the perioperative outcome for early-stage NSCLC, but the robotic approach allowed an improvement of LN dissection. Further studies are suggested to validate the results of this trial.Clinical Trial Registrationclinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02804893.

Risk Stratification of Cirrhotic Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Single-Centre Experience

Concomitant liver cirrhosis is a crucial risk factor for major surgeries. However, only few data are available concerning cirrhotic patients requiring esophagectomy for malignant disease. From a prospectively maintained database of esophageal cancer patients, who underwent curative esophagectomy between 01/2012 and 01/2016, patients with concomitant liver cirrhosis (LCP) were compared to non-cirrhotic patients (NLCP).Of 170 patients, 14 cirrhotic patients with predominately low MELD scores (≤ 9, 64.3%) were identified. Perioperative outcome was significantly worse for LCP, as proofed by 30-day (57.1% vs. 7.7, p<0.001) and 90-day mortality (64.3% vs. 9.6%, p<0.001), anastomotic leakage rate (64.3 vs. 22.3%, p=0.002) and sepsis (57.1 vs. 21.5%, p=0.006). Even after adjustment for age, gender, comorbidities, and surgical approach, LCP revealed higher odds for 30-day and 90-day mortality compared to NLCP. Moreover, 5-year survival analysis showed a significantly poorer long-term outcome of LCP (p=0.023). For risk stratification, none of the common cirrhosis scores proved prognostic impact, whereas components as Bilirubin (auROC 94.4%), INR (auROC=90.0%), and preoperative ascites (p=0.038) correlated significantly with the perioperative outcome. Curative esophagectomy for cirrhotic patients is associated with a dismal prognosis and should be evaluated critically. While MELD and Child score failed to predict perioperative mortality, Bilirubin and INR proofed excellent prognostic capacity in this cohort.

Information technology-based joint preoperative assessment, risk stratification and its impact on patient management, perioperative outcome, and cost

Background: Despite negative recommendations, routine preoperative testing practice is nearly universal. Our aim is to bring the healthcare providers on one platform by using information-technology based preanaesthetic assessment and evaluate the routine preoperative testing’s impact on patient outcome and cost. Methods: A prospective, non-randomised study was conducted in a teaching hospital during January 2019-August 2020. A locally developed software and cloud-computing were used as a tool to modify preanaesthesia evaluation. The number of investigations ordered, time taken, cost incurred, were compared with the routine practice. Further data were matched as per surgical invasiveness and the patient's physical status. Appropriate tests compared intergroup differences and p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: Data from 114 patients (58 in routine and 56 in patient and surgery specific) were analysed. Patient and surgery specific investigation led to a reduction in the investigations by 80-90%, hospital visit by 50%, and the total cost by 80%, without increasing the day of surgery cancellation or complications. Conclusion: Information technology-based joint preoperative assessment and risk stratification are feasible through locally developed software with minimal cost. It helps in applying patient and surgery specific investigation, reducing the number of tests, hospital visit, and cost, without adversely affecting the perioperative outcome. The application of the modified method will help in cost-effective, yet quality and safe perioperative healthcare delivery. It will also benefit the public from both service and economic perspective.