The Effect of Pandemic on Lung Cancer Waiting Time - Tertiary Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer are crucial to improve the survival and the outcomes in patients who are diagnosed with lung cancer. Many factors can affect the waiting time for lung cancer treatment, however, the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was one of the major factors that universally slowed down clinical activities in the last three years. We are aiming with this study to demonstrate how this pandemic and other factors affected the lung cancer waiting times for diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: This is a retrospective study including 670 patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer within the NHS Lothian region of Edinburgh - Scotland between March 2019 and November 2023. One hundred patients underwent curative lung resection. Patients were categorised into three groups for sub analysis. The first group included patients diagnosed before the COVID-19 pandemic, the second group included patients diagnosed during the pandemic in 2020, and the third group represents those diagnosed after the mass vaccination program was established and until November 2023. RESULTS: The average waiting time between the referral from the GP to the date of surgery in the three groups was 88.5 days, 81 days, and 83.5 days, respectively. On the other hand, the waiting times elapsing between the first surgical clinic appointment and the date of the surgery itself were 17.6 days, 18.6 days, and 21.5 days, respectively. CONCLUSION: Unexpectedly waiting times elapsing between the referral to surgery and the date of surgery amongst lung cancer patients showed improvement during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is likely due to prioritizing cancer patients. Nevertheless, actions should be considered to decrease the waiting times in general.

Difficulty Weaning From Cardiopulmonary Bypass Following an Aortic Valve Replacement.

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains the treatment of choice for severe aortic stenosis. Despite the growing number of transcatheter AVR (TAVR) in younger and intermediate-to-low-risk patients, surgical AVR (SAVR) is widely used and retains low operative mortality, low rate of complications, and predictable long-term valve durability. Although it is a straightforward procedure, on some occasions, a surgeon could face challenging situations, such as compromised coronary flow and an inability to wean the patient from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Our patient required concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting to overcome biventricular failure and facilitate successful weaning from CPB.

A Comparison of the Differences in Postoperative Chronic Pain Between Video-Assisted and Robotic-Assisted Approaches in Thoracic Surgery.

Background and objective In the last decade, there has been significant evolution in thoracic surgery with the advent of robotic surgery. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the incidence of postoperative chronic pain (for six months and beyond) in robotic and video-assisted approaches to analyze the long-term effects of the two different techniques. Methods This was a retrospective study involving 92 patients who underwent various thoracic operations between six months and two years preceding the study. Patients were classified into two groups based on the type of surgery: video-assisted (VATS) (n=51), and robotic-assisted (RATS) (n=41) thoracoscopic Surgery. We employed the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire to assess the utility values in terms of five quality-of-life measures (self-care, pain/discomfort, mobility, anxiety/depression, and usual activities). Results In the VATS group, the median age was 68 years while it was 57 years in the RATS group (p=0.001). A higher proportion of patients in the VATS group had anatomical lung resection (lobectomy) compared to the RATS group: 61.2 vs. 41.6% respectively (p=0.005). However, the groups were well-matched on other patient characteristics such as relevant past medical history, underlying disease pathology, and final disease staging (if malignant), with no significant differences between groups observed regarding these traits. In the VATS group, 62.7% of patients were pain-free at the time of the questionnaire-based evaluation compared to 51.2% in the RATS group. Additionally, 25.5% vs. 39% of patients had mild pain in the VATS and RATS groups respectively. Neither of these differences was statistically significant. Conclusion Patients who undergo RATS are known to have better recovery and less pain compared to those who have VATS in the immediate postoperative period. However, our results did not find RATS to be superior to VATS in terms of long-term pain. Additionally, robotic surgery is associated with higher hospital costs. In light of these findings, further comparative studies between the two approaches are recommended, while strategies to reduce postoperative pain and financial cost should continue to be explored.

Post-traumatic Left Ventricular Apical Aneurysm With Endoluminal Thrombus.

Here, we report a case of a 54-year-old man who presented with complications of a left ventricle apical aneurysm, which was the result of a myocardial infarction (MI). Interestingly, he sustained the MI following a cardiac contusion whilst playing rugby 32 years ago. He had another MI 10 years later, despite the presence of normal coronary angiography following the initial event, and presented with two episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia over six months. The patient proceeded to surgical resection of the aneurysm and went on to make a good recovery.