INTRODUCTION: Intrathoracic surgical stabilization of rib fractures allows for a novel approach to rib fracture repair. This approach can help minimize muscle disruption, which may improve patient recovery compared with traditional extrathoracic plating. We hypothesized patients undergoing intrathoracic plating (ITP) to have a shorter length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS compared with extrathoracic plating (ETP). METHODS: A prospective observational paradigm shift study was performed from November 2017 until September 2021. Patients 18 and older who underwent surgical stabilization of rib fractures were included. Patients with ahead Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥3 were excluded. Patients undergoing ETP (July 2017 to October 2019) were compared with ITP (November 2019 to September 2021) with Pearson χ² tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, with the primary outcome being LOS and ICU LOS. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were included, 59 (61%) underwent ETP and 37 (38%) underwent ITP. The most common mechanism of injury was motor vehicle collision (29%) followed by falls (23%). There were no differences between groups in age, comorbidities, insurance, discharge disposition and injury severity score (18 vs. 19, p = 0.89). Intrathoracic plating had a shorter LOS (10 days vs. 8 days, p = 0.04) when compared with ETP but no difference in ICU LOS (4 days vs. 3 days, p = 0.12) and ventilator days. Extrathoracic plating patients more commonly received epidural anesthesia (56% vs. 24%, p < 0.001) and intercostal nerve block (56% vs. 29%, p = 0.01) compared with ITP. However, there was no difference in median morphine equivalents between cohorts. Operative time was shorter for ITP with ETP (279 minutes vs. 188 minutes, p < 0.001) after adjusting for numbers of ribs fixed. CONCLUSION: In this single-center study, patients who underwent ITP had a decreased LOS and operative time in comparison to ETP in patients with similar injury severity. Future prospective multicenter research is needed to confirm these findings and may lead to further adoption of this minimally invasive technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Background: Minimally invasive surgeries for non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) such as video-assisted thoracoscopic surgeries (VATSs) and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgeries (RATSs) have become standard of care for patients needing surgical resection in early stages. The role for neoadjuvant systemic therapy has increased with patients receiving neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy and immunotherapy. However, there has been some equipoise over the intraoperative and overall outcomes for these patients. Here, we review the current data regarding outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgical resection after systemic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or both. Methods: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies presenting data on patients with NSCLC that underwent neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by minimally invasive surgery was performed assessing complications, conversion rates, and lymph node yield. Results: Our search strategy and review of references resulted in 239 publications to screen with 88 full texts assessed and 21 studies included in our final review. VATS had a statistically significant higher lymph node yield in five studies. The reported conversion rates ranged from 0 to 54%. Dense adhesions, bleeding, and difficult anatomy were the most common reported reasons for conversion to open surgeries. The most common complications between both groups were prolonged air leak, arrythmia, and pneumonia. VATS was found to have significantly fewer complications in three papers. Conclusions: The current literature supports VATS as safe and feasible for patients with NSCLC after neoadjuvant systemic treatment. Surgeons should remain prepared to convert to open surgeries in those patients with dense adhesions and bleeding risk.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically changed education in medical residencies with the need to transition to a virtual format. The objective of this study is to assess the adoption of a virtual format for grand rounds, M&M, and education of the surgical department. Method: A 25 question online survey was developed using Qualtrics and distributed to faculty and resident physicians in the Department of Surgery from March to April 2021. Results: Fifty four out of 79 potential respondents (68%) completed the survey. Twenty-seven out of 54 (50%) respondents stated they were more likely to be participating in another activity most of the time or always. During to in-person conferences, 20/54 (37%) of participants reported being more distracted by other activities. Forty-two out of 54 (78%) participants strongly agree that virtual conferences are more flexible with their schedule and saves them travel time. All of the faculty want conferences to continue virtually (with or without an in-person component) citing virtual conferences are more flexible with their schedule and saves travel time. However, 4/26 (15%) of residents responded not wanting to continue virtual education citing work distractions and not truly having protected time. Conclusion: As the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is continuing with new variants, the virtual education and conference format is necessary. There is overwhelming support from both residents and faculty in favor of the virtual conference format due to flexibility, ease, and convenience. However, care must be taken to make sure that resident education time is truly protected.

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is being done with increased frequency and new advances. Intrathoracic SSRF is a new less invasive approach compared to the traditional extrathoracic plating procedure. Educational assessment can be done through descriptive analysis of learning curves with operation time used as a proxy measurement for learning. The objective of this level 3 observational cohort study is to assess the learning curve of introducing the intrathoracic method of plating at a large academic medical institution. Intrathoracic surgical stabilization of rib fractures was introduced at a tertiary trauma center in March of 2019. All patients that received SSRF beginning 11/2017 were included. Patients with abbreviated injury scale score of the head, abdomen, extremity, or face greater than three and days from injury to SSRF greater than 4 were excluded. Operation time was determined from time of incision to completion of skin closure. Time per fracture and time per plate were calculated using total operation time. Learning curves and CUSUM graphs for individual surgeons that had completed in more than 3 SSRF cases were generated using and trended for statistical significance. After exclusions, there were 38 patients with extrathoracic SSRF between November 2017-September 2021 and 24 patients with intrathoracic plating between March 2019-Sept. 2021. There were 5 fellows and 6 residents that performed extrathoracic SSRF. Four fellows and 2 residents performed intrathoracic SSRF. Graphs of time per fracture and time per plate over time produced learning curves without an inflection point for extrathoracic or intrathoracic SSRF in any of the following categories: all surgeries (Figs. 1 and 2), academic year (July to June), individual attending surgeons, fellows, or residents. There was no discernible inflection point on the generated learning curves. Time per plate and time per fracture did not decrease as surgeons gained more experience. Introducing intrathoracic SSRF in a large academic hospital may not need to account for a learning curve adjustment period.

Educational assessment of intrathoracic and extrathoracic surgical stabilization of rib fractures Injury Vol. 54 Issue 1 Preview Rib fractures are common traumatic injuries, occurring in up to 20% of patients who experience thoracic trauma [1]. Historical management of traumatic rib fractures focused on supportive care with pain control and ventilatory support, however continuous movement of ribs with respiration can delay bone healing significantly as compared to other bony injuries which can be completely immobilized [2,3]. Modern advances in available hardware systems and thoracic surgical techniques have made surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) another viable treatment option. Full-Text PDF Open Access