Search

The morbidity and mortality benefits of performing high-risk operations in high-volume centers by high-volume surgeons are evident. Regionalization is a proposed strategy to leverage high-volume centers for esophagectomy to improve quality outcomes. Internationally, regionalization occurs under national mandates. Those mandates do not exist in the United States and spontaneous regionalization of esophagectomy has only modestly occurred in the U.S. Regionalization must strike a careful balance and not limit access to optimal oncologic care to our most vulnerable cancer patient populations in rural and disadvantaged socioeconomic areas. We reviewed the recent literature highlighting: the justification of hospital and surgeon annual esophagectomy volumes for regionalization; how safety performance metrics could influence regionalization; whether regionalization is occurring in the US; what impact regionalization may have on esophagectomy costs; and barriers to patients traveling to receive oncologic treatment at regionalized centers of excellence., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The recent implementation of the International Classification of Diseases, 10 th Revision, Clinical Modification and Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-CM/PCS) provides a robust classification of diagnoses and procedures for hospital systems. As researchers begin using ICD-10-CM/PCS for outcomes research from administrative datasets, it is important to understand ICD-10-CM/PCS, as well as the strengths and challenges of these new classifications. In this review, we describe the development of ICD-10-CM/PCS and summarize how it applies specifically to thoracic surgery patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy, sublobar resection (segmentectomy or wedge resection) and esophagectomy. This myriad of ICD-10-CM/PCS codes presents challenges and questions for thoracic surgery researchers and medical journal reviewers and editors when evaluating thoracic surgical outcomes research utilizing ICD-10-CM/PCS. Additional work is needed to develop consensus guidelines and uniformity for accurate and coherent research methods to utilize ICD-10-CM/PCS in future outcomes research efforts., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The Society for Translational Medicine and The Chinese Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery conducted a systematic review of the literature in an attempt to improve our understanding in the postoperative management of chest tubes of patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy. Recommendations were produced and classified based on an internationally accepted GRADE system. The following recommendations were extracted in the present review: (I) chest tubes can be removed safely with daily pleural fluid of up to 450 mL (non-chylous and non-sanguinous), which may reduce chest tube duration and hospital length of stay (2B); (II) in rare instances, e.g., persistent abundant fluid production, the use of PrR P/B <0.5 when evaluating fluid output to determine chest tube removal might be beneficial (2B); (III) it is recommended that one chest tube is adequate following pulmonary lobectomy, except for hemorrhage and space problems (2A); (IV) chest tube clearance by milking and stripping is not recommended after lung resection (2B); (V) chest tube suction is not necessary for patients undergoing lobectomy after first postoperative day (2A); (VI) regulated chest tube suction [-11 (-1.08 kPa) to -20 (1.96 kPa) cmH 2 O depending upon the type of lobectomy] is not superior to regulated seal [-2 (0.196 kPa) cmH 2 O] when electronic drainage systems are used after lobectomy by thoracotomy (2B); (VII) chest tube removal recommended at the end of expiration and may be slightly superior to removal at the end of inspiration (2A); (VIII) electronic drainage systems are recommended in the management of chest tube in patients undergoing lobectomy (2B)., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.