thoracic surgeons – Thoracic Surgery

The cowboys and rodeo stars of thoracic surgery

Discussing Dr. Joseph Coselli and ‘the cowboys of cardiac surgery’ along with some of our own heros of thoracic surgery here at Cirugia de Torax.

There’s a great article in this month’s Annals of Thoracic Surgery, by Dr. Joseph Coselli, from Texas Heart Institute and the Michael DeBakey Department of Surgery at Baylor. His article, entitled,” My heros have always been cowboys” is more than just a title torn from the song sheets of Willie Nelson. It’s a look back at both the pioneers of cardiac surgery and his own experiences as a cardiac surgeon. He also discusses the role of surgeons, and medical practitioners in American society in general and the promises we make to both society at large and our patients.

Here at Cirugia de Torax, I’d like to take a moment to look back at the surgeons that inspired and encouraged me in this and all of my endeavors. Some of these surgeons knew me, and some of them didn’t – but their encouragement and kindnesses have spurred a career and life that have brought immense personal and professional satisfaction.

Like Dr. Coselli, I too, took inspiration from the likes of Dr. Denton Cooley. But our stories diverge greatly from there. I never met Dr. Cooley and I probably never will. But it was a related story, from my former boss (and cardiothoracic surgeon), Dr. Richard Embrey that led to an email to Dr. Cooley himself. My boss had too trained under Dr. Cooley, Dr. Debakey and the Texas Heart Institute, the citadel of American heart surgery. Then, somehow, along the way – Dr. Embrey stopped to work at our little rural Virginia hospital. We were the remnants of a larger Duke cardiothoracic program but we were a country hospital all the same.

While I learned the ins and outs of surgery from Dr. Embrey (and Dr. Geoffrey Graeber at West Virginia University) on a day-to-day basis, I was also weaned on the folklore of cardiothoracic surgery – stories of the giants of history, like the ones mentioned in Dr. Coselli’s article, as well as local Duke legends who occasionally roamed the halls of our tiny ICU and our two cardiothoracic OR suites; Dr. Duane Davis, Dr. Shu S. Lin and Dr. Peter Smith. While never working side-by-side, Dr. D’Amico’s name was almost as familiar as my own. As the sole nurse practitioner in this facility, without residents or fellows, there was no buffer, and little social divide in our daily practice. Certainly, this changed me – and my perceptions. I asked the ‘stupid’ questions but received intelligent and insightful answers. I asked even more questions, and learned even more..

These opportunities fed my mind, and nurtured my ambitions. Not to be a physician or a doctor, but to learn as much as possible about my specialty; to be the best nurse possible in my field. It also nurtured a desire to share these experiences, and this knowledge with my peers, my patients and everyone else who ever had an interest.

It was that tiny little email, a gracious three-line reply from Dr. Cooley himself that made me realize that I didn’t have to rely on folklore and second-hand stories to hear more. That’s critical; because as we’ve seen (here at Cirugia de Torax) there are a quite of few of “Masters of thoracic surgery” or perhaps future giants that haven’t had their stories told. Dr. Coselli and his fellow writers haven’t written about them yet.. So I will.

Sometimes I interview famous (or semi-famous) surgeons here, but other times, I interview lesser-known but equally talented/ innovative or promising surgeons. All of them share similar traits; dedication and love for the profession, immense surgical talent and proficiency and sincere belief in the future of technology of surgery.

So, let’s hope that it won’t take forty more years for these surgeons to be recognized for their contributions to thoracic surgery in the way that Cooley, DeBakey and Crawford are heralded in cardiac surgery.

K. Eckland, ACNP-BC

Founder & Editor -in – chief

HITHOC research and programs

New project here on Cirugia de Torax.org: to compile a list of thoracic surgeons and thoracic surgery programs that are investigating and performing HITHOC procedures, but we need your help. Includes clinical trial information.

Since I’ve had enough web traffic and emails to see that I am not the only person that is interested in more news and research in the area of HITHOC, I have started contacting thoracic surgeons and programs that are doing research and treatment using hyperthermic intrathoracic chemotherapy. (I have identified thoracic surgeons through published literature.)

I’ve already contacted several (by email) and hope to hear back soon – so I can pass it on to interested readers. If you are currently researching this treatment, or know of a thoracic surgery program, please contact me via the site with more specific details.

HITHOC programs – Cytoreductive surgery with Hyperthermic intrathoracic chemotherapy

1. University Medical Center (Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery) and at the Barmherzige Brüder Regensburg (Department of Thoracic Surgery) – Regensburg, Germany (more details pending).

1 July 2011

Running into some roadblocks on this project – having a hard time contacting (and receiving replies) from authors researching HITHOC. Hopefully, I’ll get some more leads soon.

Other Research Programs:

HITHOC (Cytoreductive surgery + hyperthermic chemotherapy

1. Extrapleural Pneumonectomy /Pleurectomy Decortication, IHOC Cisplatin and Gemcitabine With Amifostine and Sodium Thiosulfate Cytoprotection for Resectable Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma – at Brigham & Womens – study led by Dr. David Sugarbaker (who I have attempted to contact on behalf of the site several times.) This looks to be one of several clinical trial arms for HITHOC/ Hyperthermic chemotherapy for malignant chemotherapy at Brigham and Women’s.

Hyperthermic Chemotherapy only:

1. Hyperthermia/Thermal Therapy With Chemotherapy to Treat Inoperable or Metastatic Tumors – at the University of Texas at Houston, Texas. Clinical trial currently recruiting participants.

2. Heated Chemotherapy for Cancers That Have Spread to the Chest Cavity – at St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital. Currently enrolling participants.

Esophageal surgery and esophageal surgery centers

Discussion of article by Bilimoria and the importance of high volume esophageal surgery programs for successful post-operative outcomes.

Here’s another study highlighting the importance of having esophagectomies (esophageal surgery) at high volume centers. It’s a topic we’ve talked about before, and as it’s something I feel very strongly about – something readers will probably see mentioned again. It also helps answer the question – “Do I need to travel to X for surgery or can I have it at the local hospital?” This was the main questions the researchers were looking at for this study in terms of costs, logistics and burdens on patient and family.

This article by Bilimoria et. al (2010), published in the Annals of Surgery, was actually comparing outcomes for multiple surgery types at small community hospital versus large specialty center, not just thoracic surgeries but the research findings are similar to what we have reported previously. The irony of this study is that the researchers were expressly trying to prove the opposite, that small hospitals are safe for high complexity, high morbidity/ mortality operations – as a way to cut costs, and save money by preventing additional patient shifting to larger institutions that may be at a considerable distance for patients. They demonstrated limited success in their results for other surgeries – but the need for high volume esophagectomy programs for successful surgical outcomes remains unchanged. (Some of this may be due to the fact that many of these esophagectomies at smaller hospitals are performed by general, not thoracic surgeons.)

The answer for patients with esophageal cancer is: Yes – you do need to go to the esophageal cancer center (not your local community hospital). This is regardless of classification of low or high risk (which is based on age, and a Charlson score – which is a score used to add up other risk factors). This is something I have had to address with patients in my own personal practice as both a referring provider (at a smaller facility) and as a receiving provider (when I was at a larger esophageal surgery center.)

I’ve reposted the abstract below, so you can read for yourself. (The article itself is several pages long). [Italics are mine..]

Bilimoria, et. al. (2010). Risk-based Selective Referral for Cancer Surgery: A Potential Strategy to Improve Perioperative Outcomes Annals of Surgery. 2010;251(4):708-716.

Abstract

Background: Studies have demonstrated volume-outcome relationships for numerous operations, providing an impetus for regionalization; however, volume-based regionalization may not be feasible or necessary. Our objective was to determine if low-risk patients undergoing surgery at Community Hospitals have perioperative mortality rates comparable with Specialized Centers.

Methods: From the National Cancer Data Base, 940,718 patients from ~1430 hospitals were identified who underwent resection for 1 of 15 cancers (2003–2005). Patients were stratified by preoperative risk according to age and comorbidities. Separately for each cancer, regression modeling stratified by high- and low-risk groups was used to compare 60-day mortality at Specialized Centers (National Cancer Institute-designated and/or highest-volume quintile institutions), Other Academic Institutions (lower-volume, non-National Cancer Institute), and Community Hospitals.

Results: Low-risk patients had statistically similar perioperative mortality rates at Specialized Centers and Community Hospitals for 13 of 15 operations. High-risk patients had significantly lower perioperative mortality rates at Specialized Centers compared with Community Hospitals for 9 of 15 cancers. Regardless of risk group, perioperative mortality rates were significantly lower for pancreatectomy and esophagectomy at Specialized Centers. Risk-based referral compared with volume-based regionalization of most patients would require fewer patients to change to Specialized Centers.

Conclusions: Perioperative mortality for low-risk patients was comparable at Specialized Centers and Community Hospitals for all cancers except esophageal and pancreatic, thus questioning volume-based regionalization of all patients. Rather, only high-risk patients may need to change hospitals. Mortality rates could be reduced if factors at Specialized Centers resulting in better outcomes for high-risk patients can be identified and transferred to other hospitals.

Who is performing your thoracic surgery?

The majority of general thoracic surgical operations in the United States are performed by surgeons not specializing in thoracic surgery. [despite the fact that] Both general thoracic surgeons and cardiac surgeons achieve better outcomes than general surgeons.” Schipper et. al (2009).

Research has shown that speciality specific training contributes greatly to surgical outcomes, yet large numbers of surgeons persist in operating outside their area of expertise.
In fact, in the United States, the majority of thoracic surgery procedures are not performed by board-certified thoracic surgeons. Unfortunately, the majority of patients are uninformed about the different training and subspecialties among surgeons, and it appears that general surgeons are not hastening to inform them. While most patients are sophisticated enough to realize and understand that a general surgeon is not the best candidate to remove a large brain tumor, this does not apply to a lung tumor.

It is up to us, as patient advocates, and specialty practitioners to inform and protect the public. (Lest you consider this statement suspect due to self-interest – read the linked article, which reviews the body of literature comparing surgical outcomes in thoracic surgery among thoracic and nonthoracic surgeons.)

Why does this happen? As Wood & Farjah (2009) explain: (italics are mine)
“Thoracic surgeons are well aware of the apparent moral hazard that occurs in a community when a patient is referred to the local general surgeon for lung cancer resection but to the general thoracic surgeon if the patient is higher risk, is a “VIP” (health professional or relative, community or business leader), or if the patient demands specialist care. If high-risk or “important” patients benefit from operations done by thoracic surgeons, it seems likely that other patients will as well. This tacit understanding of the benefits of specialty care is obvious and is supported by research from Schipper and others, yet appears to be undermined by local factors that have yet to be confronted by hospitals, payers, patient advocacy groups, or policy makers.

Physicians referring patients requiring thoracic operations may prefer to direct a patient to a nonspecialist due to local politics and economics, potentially benefiting directly or indirectly if the patient is cared for within the same hospital or same medical group. Although many hospital credentials committees require specialty board certification to provide specialty care, this is often overlooked because of local traditions, reluctance to restrict or offend current medical staff, and concern about potential financial implications if lack of hospital “specialists” results in redirection of certain patients to a competing hospital.”

“National specialty societies representing surgeons are generally silent on the issue in an effort to avoid disenfranchising one or more of their constituencies. These well-intended but incongruous local incentives could be overcome by policy decisions by health care systems, payers, agencies evaluating quality, and government policy makers.”

Does local politics, local traditions and financial incentives to the referring physician seem like a good reason to refer a patient to an unqualified surgeon – when conclusive, and comprehensive data shows otherwise?

The Influence of Surgical Specialty on Outcomes

“STS: Lung Cancer Survival Best When Thoracic Surgeon Wields Scalpel” Dr. Farjah, “Using those figures, he estimated that “500 to 1,000 lives could be saved if all lung cancer surgeries were performed by board certified thoracic surgeons.””

Full-text article at Thoracic Surgery news – Dr. Michele Ellis on lung resection mortality by surgeon specialty.

8/24/2011 : after a telephone interview with Ilene Little, this story was highlighted at Traveling4Health, a medical site for consumers.

SITS: That’s Single Incision Thoracoscopic Surgery

the development and application of single-port thoracoscopic surgery, (or the lack there of.)

Right now, single incision scopic surgery (laparoscopic, generally*) is in all the literature. This is a minimally invasinve technique using only one port (or incision) for access to the surgical area (usually the abdomen).

I’ve seen it performed by several general surgeons as part of my travels for BogotaSurgery.org and read the literature surrounding it, but hadn’t heard much about it’s close kin, single port thoracoscopic surgery, though I’d seen it performed during a trip to Cartagena early last year. At the time, I immediately noticed the difference in technique in the operating room (it’s not something you miss) but the surgeon performing the procedure just sort of shrugged, and went back to work, a “Yeah, well.. I do this all the time sort of thing.”

Since that trip, I’ve talked to several thoracic surgeons about this technique, and they all agreed; that due to limited visibility and maneverability, it was a procedure with “limited applications”. But it didn’t sound like any of them had attempted it, or knew much on the subject.
Since ‘limited applications’ describes many surgical techniques, I decided to go to the literature, and see what has been published on the topic.

Hmm.. Not much.

An article from two Spanish surgeons dating to 2009. It’s a well written article with a decent amount of subjects (24) for the treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax. They mention one of the adaptations required is use of the Coviden multi-station system to hold instruments – this is a silly piece of equipment that costs about a thousand dollars. I know that in general surgery, several surgeons have adapted a sterile surgical glove for the same purpose. Since use of this costly but specialized piece of rubber also requires an even bigger incision – I hope these surgeons have since moved on to the sterile glove technique. In this study, length of stay and amount of post-operative pain were not greatly reduced, which was a little surprising.

Jutley, Khalil and Rocco published a paper in 2005 in the European Journaol of Cardiothoracic Surgery on the same technique for spontaneous pneumothorax with 16 patients having uniport surgery (versus 19 in the standard three port group) with positive findings of reduced pain, and less residual neuralgias.

An Italian group reported similar positive findings (compared to Jutley, et. al) in 2008 on a similar sized group/ population (28 patients uniport versus 23 ‘traditional’ 3 port). They also reported a minimum of problems with the uniport technique.

So, three published studies (there are probably more, but this is what I could find over at Pubmed) with minimum of fuss or problems… So, why isn’t there more single incision thoracoscopic surgery? Where are the surgeons performing this technique? Maybe I’m just not talking to enough thoracic surgeons, or the right thoracic surgeons..

I’ll get back to you on this.

* This laparoscopic technique goes by the anacronym: SILS for single-incision laparoscopic surgery. It is also called uni-port (uniportal) laparoscopy and it has both it’s champions and detractors.