Thoracic Surgery in the Real World: Does Surgical Specialty Affect Outcomes in Patients Having General Thoracic Operations?

Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40536-0284, USA.
The Annals of thoracic surgery (Impact Factor: 3.85). 03/2012; 93(4):1041-7; discussion 1047-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.12.061
Source: PubMed


Most general thoracic operations in the United States are performed by general surgeons. Results obtained by those identified as general surgeons are often compared with those identified as thoracic surgeons.
We interrogated the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database over a 5-year period to compare outcomes in patients who underwent similar operations by surgeons identified as either thoracic surgeons or general surgeons. We employed propensity-score matching to minimize confounding when estimating the effect of surgeon identity on postoperative outcomes.
During the study period, thoracic surgeons performed 3,263 major pulmonary or esophageal operations, and general surgeons performed 15,057 similar operations. Compared with patients operated on by general surgeons, patients operated on by thoracic surgeons had significant excess multivariate comorbidities, including insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, concurrent pneumonia, congestive heart failure, previous cardiac surgery, dialysis-dependent renal failure, disseminated cancer, prior sepsis, and previous operation within 30 days. Likewise, patients in highest risk categories had operations performed by thoracic surgeons more commonly than by general surgeons. Unadjusted comparisons for mortality and serious morbidity showed significantly worse mortality and pulmonary complications in patients operated on by thoracic surgeons. However, with propensity matching according to surgeon type, thoracic surgeons had significantly fewer serious adverse outcomes compared with general surgeons, and this decreased morbidity occurred in a higher risk cohort.
Our results show that patients operated on by thoracic surgeons have higher acuity compared with patients operated on by general surgeons. When patients are matched for comorbidities and serious preoperative risk factors, thoracic surgeons have improved outcomes, especially with regard to infectious complications and composite morbidity.

3 Reads
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology 07/2012; 30(23):2803-4. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2012.42.1222 · 18.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: : Panniculectomy can improve quality of life in morbidly obese patients, but its functional benefits are counterbalanced by relatively high complication rates. The authors endeavored to determine the impact of plastic surgery training on panniculectomy outcomes. : A retrospective review was performed of the prospectively maintained American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for all patients undergoing panniculectomy from 2006 to 2010. Patient demographic details, surgeon specialty training, and 30-day outcomes were assessed. : A total of 954 panniculectomies meeting inclusion criteria were identified. Plastic surgeons performed 694 (72.7 percent) of the procedures, and 260 (27.3 percent) were performed by nonplastic surgeons. Nonplastic surgeons had significantly higher rates of overall complications (23.08 percent versus 8.65 percent; p < 0.001) and wound infections (12.69 percent versus 5.33 percent; p < 0.001) than plastic surgeons. Average operative time for plastic surgeons was significantly longer than that for nonplastic surgeons (3.00 ± 1.48 hours versus 1.88 ± 0.93 hours; p < 0.001). Risk-adjusted multivariate regression showed that undergoing a panniculectomy by a nonplastic surgeon was a significant predictor of overall postoperative complications (odds ratio, 2.09; 95 percent CI, 1.35 to 3.23) and wound infection (odds ratio, 1.73; 95 percent CI, 1.004 to 2.98). Subgroup analysis of propensity-matched samples supported this finding. : Multivariate regression analysis of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data showed that panniculectomy performed by plastic surgeons results in lower rates of overall postoperative complications compared with that performed by nonplastic surgeons. : Risk, II.
    Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 04/2013; 131(4):604e-12e. DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182818f1f · 2.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The treatment of stage I and II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients with good or low surgical risk is primarily surgical resection. However, this area is undergoing many changes. With a greater prevalence of CT imaging, many lung cancers are being found that are small or constitute primarily ground-glass opacities. Treatment such as sublobar resection and nonsurgical approaches such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are being explored. With the advent of minimally invasive resections, the criteria to classify a patient as too ill to undergo an anatomic lung resection are being redefined. The writing panel selected topics for review based on clinical relevance to treatment of early-stage lung cancer and the amount and quality of data available for analysis and relative controversy on best approaches in stage I and II NSCLC: general surgical care vs specialist care; sublobar vs lobar surgical approaches to stage I lung cancer; video-assisted thoracic surgery vs open resection; mediastinal lymph node sampling vs lymphadenectomy at the time of surgical resection; the use of radiation therapy, with a focus on SBRT, for primary treatment of early-stage NSCLC in high-risk or medically inoperable patients as well as adjuvant radiation therapy in the sublobar and lobar resection settings; adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage NSCLC; and the impact of ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status on lung cancer survival. Recommendations by the writing committee were based on an evidence-based review of the literature and in accordance with the approach described by the Guidelines Oversight Committee of the American College of Chest Physicians. Surgical resection remains the primary and preferred approach to the treatment of stage I and II NSCLC. Lobectomy or greater resection remains the preferred approach to T1b and larger tumors. The use of sublobar resection for T1a tumors and the application of adjuvant radiation therapy in this group are being actively studied in large clinical trials. Every patient should have systematic mediastinal lymph node sampling at the time of curative intent surgical resection, and mediastinal lymphadenectomy can be performed without increased morbidity. Perioperative morbidity and mortality are reduced and long-term survival is improved when surgical resection is performed by a board-certified thoracic surgeon. The use of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II NSCLC is recommended and has shown benefit. The use of adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy for stage I NSCLC is of unproven benefit. Primary radiation therapy remains the primary curative intent approach for patients who refuse surgical resection or are determined by a multidisciplinary team to be inoperable. There is growing evidence that SBRT provides greater local control than standard radiation therapy for high-risk and medically inoperable patients with NSCLC. The role of ablative therapies in the treatment of high-risk patients with stage I NSCLC is evolving. Radiofrequency ablation, the most studied of the ablative modalities, has been used effectively in medically inoperable patients with small (< 3 cm) peripheral NSCLC that are clinical stage I.
    Chest 05/2013; 143(5 Suppl):e278S-313S. DOI:10.1378/chest.12-2359 · 7.48 Impact Factor
Show more