No abstract

Objective The use of robotic lung surgery has increased dramatically despite being a new, costly technology with undefined benefits over standard of care. There is a paucity of published comparative articles justifying its use or cost. Furthermore, outcomes regarding robotic lung resection are either from single institutions with in-house historical comparisons or based on limited numbers. We compared consecutive robotic anatomic lung resections performed at two institutions with matched data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) National Database for all open and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) resections. We sought to define any benefits to a robotic approach versus national outcomes after thoracotomy and VATS. Methods Data from all consecutive robotic anatomic lung resections were collected from two institutions (n = 181) from January 2010 until January 2012 and matched against the same variables for anatomic resections via thoracotomy (n = 5913) and VATS (n = 4612) from the STS National Database. Patients with clinical N2, N3, and M1 disease were excluded. Results There was a significant decrease in 30-day mortality and postoperative blood transfusion after robotic lung resection relative to VATS and thoracotomy. The patients stayed in the hospital 2 days less after robotic surgery than VATS and 4 days less than after thoracotomy. Robotic surgery led to fewer air leaks, intraoperative blood transfusions, need for perioperative bronchoscopy or reintubation, pneumonias, and atrial arrhythmias compared with thoracotomy. Conclusions This is the first comparative analysis using national STS data. It suggests potential benefits of robotic surgery relative to VATS and thoracotomy, particularly in reducing length of stay, 30-day mortality, and postoperative blood transfusion.

Objective: The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate resource consumption of clinically significant esophageal anastomotic leaks.Methods: Between September 1, 2008, to December 31, 2014, a prospectively maintained database was queried to identify patients with grade III to IV anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Inflation-adjusted standardized costs were applied to billed services related to leak diagnosis and treatment, from time of leak detection to resumption of oral diet. A matched analysis was used to compare average expenditures in patients without vs. those with an anastomotic leak.Results: Of 448 patients undergoing esophagectomy after neoadjuvant treatment, 399 patients met inclusion criteria. Twenty-four grade III to IV anastomotic leaks were identified (6% leak rate). Five transhiatal esophagectomies accounted for 20.8% of cases, whereas 9 Ivor Lewis and 10 McKeown esophagectomies accounted for 37.5% and 41.7%, respectively. The median time required to treat an anastomotic leak was 73 days (range 14-701). The additional median standardized cost per leak was $68,296 (mean $119,822). Matched analysis demonstrated that mean treatment costs were 2.6 times greater for patients with an anastomotic leak. This was primarily attributed to prolonged hospitalization, with post-leak detection length of stay ranging from 7 to 73 days. The largest contributors to cost for all patients were intensive care stay (30%), hospital room (17%), pharmacy (16%), and surgical intervention (13%).

No abstract

No abstract