Search

The value of thymectomy in the treatment of non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis has been controversially discussed. The relatively low incidence and prevalence of this disease, the inconsistent documentation in various studies and the necessity of a long-term follow-up to assess the therapeutic effects has made the generation of valid data difficult. The publication in 2016 of the MGTX trial in the New England Journal of Medicine delivered the first randomized controlled data in which patients aged 18-65 years with generalized myasthenia gravis and positive for acetylcholine receptor antibodies showed a significant benefit after surgical resection of the thymus via median sternotomy. Despite a lack of validation of the advantages of thymectomy by minimally invasive surgery from randomized controlled studies, this technique seems to positively influence the outcome of certain patient groups in a similar way. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) using subxyphoidal and transcervical access routes showed not only esthetic advantages but also showed no relevant inferiority in the influence on clinical outcomes of myasthenia gravis compared to median sternotomy; however, not only the benefits and the esthetic results show differences but also the advantages in the various subtypes of myasthenia gravis show divergent prospects of success with respect to remission. The clinical spectrum of myasthenia is heterogeneous with respect to the occurrence of antibodies, the body region affected and the age of the patient at first diagnosis. Ultimately, thymectomy is an effective causal treatment of myasthenia gravis.

Background and Objectives: The incidence of distant metastases in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) is approximately 10%. Pulmonary metastases are the most frequent distant location, with an incidence of 70-85%. The standard treatment options are chemo-, immuno- and radiotherapy. Despite a benefit for long-term survival for patients with isolated pulmonary metastases, pulmonary metastasectomy (PM) is not the treatment of choice. Furthermore, many otorhinolaryngologists are not sufficiently familiar with the concept of PM. This work reviews the recent studies of pulmonary metastatic HNC and the results after pulmonary metastasectomy. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were checked for the case series' of patients undergoing metastasectomy with pulmonary metastases published since 1 January 2000. Results: We included the data of 15 studies of patients undergoing PM. The 5-year survival rates varied from 21% to 59%, with median survival from 10 to 77 months after PM. We could not identify one specific prognostic factor for long-term survival after surgery. However, at least most studies stated that PM should be planned if a complete (R0) resection is possible. Conclusions: PM showed reliable results and is supposedly the treatment of choice for patients with isolated pulmonary metastases. Patients not suitable for surgery may benefit from other non-surgical therapy. Every HNC patient with pulmonary metastases should be discussed in the multidisciplinary tumor board to optimize the therapy and the outcome.

OBJECTIVES Pulmonary metastasectomy (PM) is an established procedure for selected patients with metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC). Non-surgical therapy in the form of chemo- and immunotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors and radiation therapy are also treatment options. There are no randomized controlled trials comparing PM with non-surgical therapy. Here, we retrospectively compare the long-term survival of patients, undergoing PM with patients receiving non-surgical therapy. METHODS All HNC patients with pulmonary metastases were included, if the primary HNC was treated curatively and distant metastases, apart from the lungs were excluded. The pulmonary metastases were confirmed by biopsy as metastases of the HNC primary tumour in the non-surgical therapy group. To further clarify that PM prolonged survival, a propensity score-matched analysis was performed. RESULTS Between January 2010 and December 2020, 62 HNC patients with isolated pulmonary metastases were included in our analysis. Thirty-three underwent PM and 29 received non-surgical therapy. Histology, tumour stage and localization of the primary HNC did not differ between groups. The number of metastases, age and ASA classification did also not differ between the groups. Patients undergoing PM showed significantly better 1- (n = 31; 93.5% vs n = 19; 65.5%; P = 0.006), 3- (n = 17; 72.2% vs n = 9; 30.4%; P = 0.004) and 5-year (n = 10; 53.4% vs n = 4; 20.0%; P = 0.001) survival rates, compared to patients receiving non-surgical therapy. CONCLUSIONS Patients with pulmonary metastatic HNC undergoing PM had a significantly better overall survival compared to patients receiving non-surgical therapy. Therefore, selected patients should undergo PM to improve survival.

Lung Cancer is still one of the leading causes for cancer related death worldwide. The determina-tion of an adequate therapeutic approach requests a precise staging, which contains computed to-mography (CT) of the thorax, positron emission tomography computed tomography (PET-CT), cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) and pulmonary function testing as well as the pa-tient's opinion. In UICC stages I and II, if there is functional operability and technical resectabil-ity, the treatment of choice is primary surgery followed by adjuvant therapy depending on lymph node status, while patients in the metastatic stage IV, or with locally advanced, nonresectable dis-ease are more likely to receive definitive chemoradiation therapy. The UICC Stage III (8th edi-tion) combines a heterogeneous group of patients that remains the focus of discussion regarding the optimal therapeutic regimen, which ranges from primary surgical care to a neoadjuvant ther-apeutic approach, to definitive conservative treatment. Since March 2020, we have been treating a patient on an interdisciplinary basis who initially had a UICC stage IIIA multilevel N-2 pul-monary adenocarcinoma and finally underwent successful surgery after a very good response to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy. Our latest follow-up showed no evidence of recurrence. Sim-ilar to current ongoing studies our case shows, that neoadjuvant immunotherapy is a reasonable alternative to conventional neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Objective: Sublobar resection is frequently performed for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients with <= 2 cm nodules. Frequently, both proper staging and radical lymphadenectomy are omitted in these operations. Therefore, we decided to evaluate the number of lymph node metastases and the number of postoperative nodal upstaging in patients undergoing pulmonary resection due to NSCLC with tumors <= 2 cm at our institution. Methods: Nodal upstaging, lymphangiosis-(L1), and hemangiosis carcinomatosa (V1) were analyzed. pN0 patients were compared to patients with postoperative nodal upstaging. One-, three, and five-year survival rates were measured. Survival was also assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 747 patients underwent surgery for NSCLC at our institution between 2012 and 2020. We retrospectively reviewed data of 236 NSCLC patients with <= 2 cm tumors. The mean tumor size was 1.4 cm +/- 0.39 in our cohort. Of our patients, 14% showed a cT1a tumor, and 86% of patients cT1b. 24.0 +/- 12.3 lymph nodes were dissected and analyzed per patient, and 0.7 +/- 2.0 of those were affected. Of our patients, 16.1% showed L1 affection, and 7.6% a V1 affection. Lymph node involvement was diagnosed in 11(4.7%) patients preoperatively. 39(16.5%) patients were upstaged due to lymph node involvement postoperatively (p < 0.001). Upstaged patients showed significantly worse 3-(upstaged: 60.6% vs. pN0: 83.2%; p = 0.01) and 5-year (upstages: 38% vs. pN0 71.5%; p = 0.02) survival rates. Conclusion: 16.5% of patients with <= 2 cm NSCLC were nodal upstaged postoperatively. These results underline that lymphadenectomy and proper staging are crucial for NSCLC patients irrespective of the tumor size and the surgical approach.

OBJECTIVES: Bovine and porcine pericardial patches are frequently used in cardiothoracic and vascular surgery. There are no guidelines recommending the usage of these patches for particular surgical approaches. However, these 2 materials supposedly possess different properties. The clinical advantage of porcine compared with bovine patches remains controversial. In this experimental study, we analysed the incorporation and vascularization of bovine and porcine pericardial patches during the initial phase after implantation. METHODS: Bovine and porcine pericardial patches were implanted into the dorsal skinfold chamber of C57BL/6 mice (n = 8 per group) to study vascularization and inflammation at the implantation site using repetitive intravital fluorescence microscopy over a 14-day period. At the end of the in vivo experiments, CD-31-positive cells were determined to evaluate the vascularization by immunohistochemistry. Furthermore, cell proliferation and apoptosis were analysed immunohistochemically. RESULTS: Implanted bovine patches exhibited an enhanced vascularization, as indicated by a significantly higher number of CD-31-positive cells and micro-vessels (23.2 +/- 4.3 vs 16.5 +/- 5.8 mm(-2); P=0.001). Furthermore, bovine patches showed a slightly but not significantly higher functional capillary density. Both patches induced a moderate leukocytic inflammatory host tissue response, and neither bovine nor porcine patches significantly affected apoptosis and cell proliferation at the implantation site. CONCLUSIONS: Bovine and porcine pericardial patches are similarly suitable for surgery. Bovine patches exhibited an improved vascularization during the first 14 days after implantation. This may result in a quicker and improved incorporation into the surrounding tissue compared with porcine pericardial patches.

Background. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) on surgical outcome and hemodynamics compared with standard aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods. One hundred sixty- three RDAVR patients (isolated, n = 67; combined with coronary artery bypass graft surgery [CABG], n = 96) were compared with a propensity matched control group (n = 163). Primary endpoints included association between valve type and procedure times, prosthesis size, transvalvular gradient, and indexed effective orifice area. Secondary endpoints were postoperative mortality and morbidity. Results. Aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times in the RDAVR group were 55 +/- 23 and 88 +/- 38 minutes, respectively, compared with 77 +/- 22 and 105 +/- 38 minutes in the control group (p < 0.001). In the subgroup of patients undergoing isolated RDAVR (n = 67 of 163), the aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 38 +/- 13 and 66 +/- 22 minutes, respectively, compared with 55 +/- 14 and 81 +/- 18 minutes in the control group (n = 67 of 163; p < 0.001). The RDAVR patients received larger prostheses (23.3 +/- 1.8 mm) compared with standard AVR (22.8 +/- 1.5 mm; p = 0.002). Mean transvalvular gradients and indexed effective orifice areas were 9 +/- 5 mm Hg and 1.11 +/- 0.11, respectively, in the RDVAR group compared with 13 +/- 5 mm Hg and 0.95 +/- 0.08 in the control group (p < 0.001). Hospital mortality was similar in both groups (1.8%, n = 3 of 163; p = 1.000). Postoperative pacemaker rates were 3.5% (n = 3 of 67) for isolated RDAVR versus 3.0% (n = 2 of 67; p = 0.649) for isolated AVR and 12.5% (n = 12 of 96) for RDAVR/CABG versus 4.2% (n = 4 of 96; p = 0.032) for AVR/CABG. Conclusions. RDAVR facilitates reduced aortic crossclamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times compared with standard AVR, particularly in patients undergoing concomitant procedures, allowing the use of larger prostheses and resulting in lower transvalvula

OBJECTIVES: Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RD-AVR) potentially reduces procedure times providing excellent haemodynamic results compared to standard tissue aortic valve replacement. However, concerns have been raised regarding higher rates of postoperative pacemaker (PPM) requirement compared to standard aortic valve replacement. In this study, we sought to determine the PPM rate and its potential risk factors in RD-AVR patients. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2017, 193 patients underwent RD-AVR. The main outcome investigated was PPM. Other outcome parameters included hospital mortality, major morbidity, length of stay and discharge condition. Predictors of PPM were determined using multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Isolated RD-AVR was performed in 72 (37%) patients and 121 (63%) patients underwent combined RD-AVR [coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 110), mitral repair (n = 6) and others (n = 5)]. Aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 57.1 +/- 25.1 min and 90.0 +/- 40.1 min in the overall RD-AVR population and 39.4 +/- 13.5 min and 67.6 +/- 24.5 min, respectively, in isolated RD-AVR procedures. PPM occurred in 20 (10.4%) patients. Multivariable analysis revealed bypass grafting of the circumflex artery [odds ratio = 2.8] and preoperative right branch bundle block (odds ratio = 11.7) as independent predictors for PPM. CONCLUSIONS: RD-AVR is a safe and simple procedure resulting in favourable short aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times and considerable low gradients in postoperative echocardiography. PPM following isolated RD-AVR remains in the range of standard aortic valve replacement However, patients undergoing concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting, particularly of the circumflex artery, face a 3-fold increased risk for PPM implantation enhanced if right branch bundle block is present Follow-up examination is necessary to determine whether these patients remain pacer dependent during long-term follow-up.