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.

Precarious innovation of anti-infective coated devices

Journal The Lancet
Authors Sedrakyan, Art
Year Published 2014
Link to Publication

Surgeons focus on technical performance, teamwork, and communication to achieve the highest degree of safety. They will use new measures or devices that can potentially improve the safety and outcome of surgery, and often rely on sparse data from manufacturers to argue their case for the use of a new device in a hospital where costs might be of increasing concern. Heated debates are expected since recent studies have shown that most new devices do not have clinical or long-term safety data.1–3 One can no longer assume that new devices and equipment are superior products that have been carefully studied and selected. An increasing number of surgeons are becoming aware that incremental device innovations are based on scarce or no data and should not be adopted rapidly just because they are new

Comparative safety of endovascular and open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in low-risk male patients.

Journal Journal of Vascular Surgery
Authors Siracuse, Jeffrey J., Heather L. Gill, Ashley R. Graham, Darren B. Schneider, Peter H. Connolly, Art Sedrakyan, and Andrew J. Meltzer
Year Published 2014
Link to Publication

Objective

The prevalence of significant comorbidities among patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) has contributed to widespread enthusiasm for endovascular AAA repair (EVAR). However, the advantages of EVAR in patients at low risk for open surgical repair (OSR) remain unclear. The objective of this study was to assess perioperative outcomes of EVAR and OSR in low-risk patients.

Methods

Patients undergoing EVAR and OSR for infrarenal AAAs were identified in the 2007 to 2010 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data sets. AAA-specific risk stratification, by the Medicare aneurysm scoring system, was used to create matched low-risk (score <3) cohorts. Perioperative morbidity and mortality were assessed by crude comparisons of matched groups and regression models.

Results

Of 11,753 elective patients undergoing EVAR, 4339 (37%) were deemed low risk (score <3). A matched cohort of 1576 low-risk patients was developed from a total of 3804 (41%) undergoing OSR. The low-risk cohorts included only male patients and those <75 years of age, without significant cardiac, pulmonary, or vascular comorbidities. Mean age in both low-risk groups was 67 ± 6 years (P = NS). EVAR patients had higher rates of obesity (40% vs 33%; P < .001), diabetes (16% vs 13%; P = .005), history of cardiac intervention (24% vs 19%; P < .001), cardiac surgery (23% vs 20%; P = .02), steroid use (4% vs 2%; P = .002), and bleeding disorders/anticoagulation (9% vs 6%; P = .001) compared with OSR patients. There were no other differences between the matched cohorts. EVAR was associated with reduced 30-day mortality (0.5% vs 1.5%; P < .01) and reduced rates of major complications, including the following: sepsis (0.7% vs 3.2%; P < .01), unplanned intubation (1.0 vs 5.4%; P < .001), pneumonia (0.8% vs 6.1%; P < .001), acute renal failure (0.4% vs 2.7%; P < .001), and early reoperation (3.7% vs 6.0%; P < .001). Furthermore, EVAR was associated with reduced perioperative morbidity across organ systems, including venous thromboembolism (0.1% vs 0.3%; P = .001), transfusion requirement of more than 4 units (2.0% vs 13.0%; P < .001), cardiac arrest (0.2 vs 0.8; P = .001), neurologic deficits (0.2% vs 0.5%; P = .032), and urinary tract infections (1.2% vs 2%; P = .02).

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate that even among those male patients at low risk for OSR on the basis of comorbidities, EVAR is associated with reduced perioperative mortality and major complications. Whereas clinical decisions must account for safety and long-term effectiveness, the short-term benefit of EVAR is evident even among male patients at the lowest risk for OSR.