Long-term Postprocedural Outcomes of Palliative Emergency Stenting vs Stoma in Malignant Large-Bowel Obstruction

Journal JAMA Surgery
Authors Abelson JS, Yeo HL, Mao J, Milsom JW, Sedrakyan A.
Year Published 2017
Link to publication

Abstract

This study investigated readmission, reoperation, and other outcomes following palliative stent or stoma operation for bowel obstruction due to colorectal cancer in New York State, both in-hospital and long-term (90 days and 1 year). It was found that patients living closer to high-volume centers were more likely to undergo a stenting procedure. Patients who underwent stenting had lower rates of in-hospital death and of procedural complications than those who underwent stoma creation. Patients who received stents also had a shorter average length of stay and were less likely to be discharged to a nursing or rehabilitation facility. However, patients undergoing stenting were more likely to receive another procedure in the following year, mostly a re-stenting procedure. Stenting is safe in patients who are to receive only palliative treatment for bowel obstruction when offered at high volume hospitals. Patients should be cautioned that they might receive another stenting in the following year.

 

Comparative Effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted vs Thoracoscopic Lobectomy.

Journal Journal of Endourology
Authors
Subroto Paul, MD, FCCP; Jessica Jalbert, PhD, MD; Abby J. Isaacs, MS; Nasser K. Altorki, MD, FCCP; O. Wayne Isom, MD; Art Sedrakyan, MD, PhD
Year Published 2014
Link to Publication

BACKGROUND:  Robotic-assisted lobectomy is being offered increasingly to patients. However, little is known about its safety, complication profile, or effectiveness.

METHODS:  Patients undergoing lobectomy in in the United States from 2008 to 2011 were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. In-hospital mortality, complications, length of stay, and cost for patients undergoing robotic-assisted lobectomy were compared with those for patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy.

RESULTS:  We identified 2,498 robotic-assisted and 37,595 thoracoscopic lobectomies performed from 2008 to 2011. The unadjusted rate for any complication was higher for those undergoing robotic-assisted lobectomy than for those undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy (50.1% vs 45.2%, P < .05). Specific complications that were higher included cardiovascular complications (23.3% vs 20.0%, P < .05) and iatrogenic bleeding complications (5.0% vs 2.0%, P < .05). The higher risk of iatrogenic bleeding complications persisted in multivariable analyses (adjusted OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.58-4.43). Robotic-assisted lobectomy costs significantly more than thoracoscopic lobectomy ($22,582 vs $17,874, P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS:  In this early experience with robotic surgery, robotic-assisted lobectomy was associated with a higher rate of intraoperative injury and bleeding than was thoracoscopic lobectomy, at a significantly higher cost.

Long term survival with thoracoscopic versus open lobectomy: propensity matched comparative analysis using SEER-Medicare database

Journal BMJ
Authors
Subroto Paul,  Abby J Isaacs,  Tom Treasure, Nasser K Altorki, Art Sedrakyan
Year Published 2014
Link to Publication

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To compare long term survival after minimally invasive lobectomy and thoracotomy lobectomy.

DESIGN:

Propensity matched analysis.

SETTING:

Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database.

PARTICIPANTS:

All patients with lung cancer from 2007 to 2009 undergoing lobectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:

Influence of less invasive thoracoscopic surgery on overall survival, disease-free survival, and cancer specific survival.

RESULTS:

From 2007 to 2009, 6008 patients undergoing lobectomy were identified (n=4715 (78%) thoracotomy). The median age of the entire cohort was 74 (interquartile range 70-78) years. The median length of follow-up for entire group was 40 months. In a matched analysis of 1195 patients in each treatment category, no statistical differences in three year overall survival, disease-free survival, or cancer specific survival were found between the groups (overall survival: 70.6% v 68.1%, P=0.55; disease-free survival: 86.2% v 85.4%, P=0.46; cancer specific survival: 92% v 89.5%, P=0.05).

CONCLUSION:

This propensity matched analysis showed that patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy had similar overall, cancer specific, and disease-free survival compared with patients undergoing thoracotomy lobectomy. Thoracoscopic techniques do not seem to compromise these measures of outcome after lobectomy.