Background Esophagectomy is a complex operation and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In an attempt to lower morbidity, we have adopted a minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy. Objectives Our primary objective was to evaluate the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a large group of patients. Our secondary objective was to compare the modified McKeown minimally invasive approach (videothoracoscopic surgery, laparoscopy, neck anastomosis [MIE-neck]) with our current approach, a modified Ivor Lewis approach (laparoscopy, videothoracoscopic surgery, chest anastomosis [MIE-chest]). Methods We reviewed 1033 consecutive patients undergoing MIE. Elective operation was performed on 1011 patients; 22 patients with nonelective operations were excluded. Patients were stratified by surgical approach and perioperative outcomes analyzed. The primary endpoint studied was 30-day mortality. Results The MIE-neck was performed in 481 (48%) and MIE-Ivor Lewis in 530 (52%). Patients undergoing MIE-Ivor Lewis were operated in the current era. The median number of lymph nodes resected was 21. The operative mortality was 1.68%. Median length of stay (8 days) and ICU stay (2 days) were similar between the 2 approaches. Mortality rate was 0.9%, and recurrent nerve injury was less frequent in the Ivor Lewis MIE group (P < 0.001). Conclusions MIE in our center resulted in acceptable lymph node resection, postoperative outcomes, and low mortality using either an MIE-neck or an MIE-chest approach. The MIE Ivor Lewis approach was associated with reduced recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and mortality of 0.9% and is now our preferred approach. Minimally invasive esophagectomy can be performed safely, with good results in an experienced center.

A B S T R A C T PurposeAlthough anatomic segmentectomy has been considered a compromised procedure by many surgeons, recent retrospective, single-institution series have demonstrated tumor recurrence and patient survival rates that approximate those achieved by lobectomy. The primary objective of this study was to use propensity score matching to compare outcomes after these anatomic resection approaches for stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients and MethodsA retrospective data set including 392 segmentectomy patients and 800 lobectomy patients was used to identify matched segmentectomy and lobectomy cohorts (n ϭ 312 patients per group) using a propensity score matching algorithm that accounted for confounding effects of preoperative patient variables. Primary outcome variables included freedom from recurrence and overall survival. Factors affecting survival were assessed by Cox regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier estimates. ResultsPerioperative mortality was 1.2% in the segmentectomy group and 2.5% in the lobectomy group (P ϭ .38). At a mean follow-up of 5.4 years, comparing segmentectomy with lobectomy, no differences were noted in locoregional (5.5% v 5.1%, respectively; P ϭ 1.00), distant (14.8% v 11.6%, respectively; P ϭ .29), or overall recurrence rates (20.2% v 16.7%, respectively; P ϭ .30). Furthermore, when comparing segmentectomy with lobectomy, no significant differences were noted in 5-year freedom from recurrence (70% v 71%, respectively; P ϭ .467) or 5-year survival (54% v 60%, respectively; P ϭ .258). Segmentectomy was not found to be an independent predictor of recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.40) or overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.52). ConclusionIn this large propensity-matched comparison, lobectomy was associated with modestly increased freedom from recurrence and overall survival, but the differences were not statistically significant. These results will need further validation by prospective, randomized trials (eg, Cancer and Leukemia Group B 140503 trial).

VATS of early-stage thymoma appears safe and feasible and was associated with a shorter hospital stay. The oncologic outcomes were comparable in the open and VATS groups during intermediate-term follow-up. Additional follow-up is required to evaluate the long-term results of thoracoscopic thymectomy for early-stage thymoma.

BackgroundThe Robotic Endoscopic System (Auris Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA) has the potential to overcome several limitations of contemporary guided-bronchoscopic technologies for the diagnosis of lung lesions. Our objective is to report on the initial post-marketing feasibility, safety and diagnostic yield of this technology.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed data on consecutive cases in which robot-assisted bronchoscopy was used to sample lung lesions at four centers in the US (academic and community) from June 15th, 2018 to December 15th, 2018.ResultsOne hundred and sixty-seven lesions in 165 patients were included in the analysis, with an average follow-up of 185 ± 55 days. The average size of target lesions was 25.0 ± 15.0 mm. Seventy-one percent were located in the peripheral third of the lung. Pneumothorax and airway bleeding occurred in 3.6 and 2.4% cases, respectively. Navigation was successful in 88.6% of cases. Tissue samples were successfully obtained in 98.8%. The diagnostic yield estimates ranged from 69.1 to 77% assuming the cases of biopsy-proven inflammation without any follow-up information (N = 13) were non-diagnostic and diagnostic, respectively. The yield was 81.5, 71.7 and 26.9% for concentric, eccentric and absent r-EBUS views, respectively. Diagnostic yield was not affected by lesion size, density, lobar location or centrality.ConclusionsRAB implementation in community and academic centers is safe and feasible, with an initial diagnostic yield of 69.1–77% in patients with lung lesions that require diagnostic bronchoscopy. Comparative trials with the existing bronchoscopic technologies are needed to determine cost-effectiveness of this technology.

No abstract

LRGPEH performed in our minimally invasive center of excellence resulted in a durable repair with a high degree of satisfaction and preservation of GERD-related QoL at a median follow-up of over 6 years.

No abstract

Background: The Robotic Endoscopic System (Auris Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA) has the potential to overcome several limitations of contemporary guided-bronchoscopic technologies for the diagnosis of lung lesions. Our objective is to report on the initial post-marketing feasibility, safety and diagnostic yield of this technology. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data on consecutive cases in which robot-assisted bronchoscopy was used to sample lung lesions at four centers in the US (academic and community) from June 15th, 2018 to December 15th, 2018. Results: One hundred and sixty-seven lesions in 165 patients were included in the analysis, with an average follow-up of 185 ± 55 days. The average size of target lesions was 25.0 ± 15.0 mm. Seventy-one percent were located in the peripheral third of the lung. Pneumothorax and airway bleeding occurred in 3.6% and 2.4% cases, respectively. Navigation was successful in 88.6% of cases. Tissue samples were successfully obtained in 98.8%. The diagnostic yield estimates ranged from 69.1% to 77% assuming the cases of biopsy-proven inflammation without any follow-up information (N=13) were non-diagnostic and diagnostic, respectively. The yield was 81.5%, 71.7% and 26.9% for concentric, eccentric and absent r-EBUS views, respectively. Diagnostic yield was not affected by lesion size, density, lobar location or centrality. Conclusions: RAB implementation in community and academic centers is safe and feasible, with an initial diagnostic yield of 69.1-77% in patients with lung lesions that require diagnostic bronchoscopy. Comparative trials with the existing bronchoscopic technologies are needed to determine cost-effectiveness of this technology.