Evaluation of Light's criteria in cytologically proved malignant pleural effusions.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural effusions are usually described as exudates. However, several studies have determined a high incidence of cytologically proved malignant effusions in transudates. The study aims to determine the compliance of cytologically proved malignant pleural effusions with Light's Criteria and to assess when it is necessary to perform more studies in transudates. METHODS: We have retrospectively reviewed all the cytologically positive effusions at our institution over six years. Biochemical characteristics were recorded, and Light's criteria were determined for each effusion. We analyzed the effusions' compliance with the criteria and determined whether its primary tumor or the presence of cirrhosis, acute kidney injury or congestive heart failure could interfere in the criteria being met. RESULTS: Overall, 224 patients presented malignant pleural effusions with biochemical pleural fluid analysis. Two (0.9%) were transudative effusions and two hundred and twenty-two (99.1%) were exudative effusions. Lung carcinoma, breast carcinoma and ovarian carcinoma were the most frequent primary tumors. One hundred and two (45.94%) patients met three Light criteria, 77 (34.68%) patients met two criteria and 43 (19.36%) met one criterion. Both patients with transudative malignant pleural effusions presented concomitant malignant ascites. CONCLUSIONS: Malignant transudative pleural effusions were 0.9% of our patients. We found no relation between transudative malignant effusions and the presence of cirrhosis, acute kidney injury or congestive heart failure, or the type of tumor. We found no difference between the tumor type and the distribution of Light's criteria met.

Right sleeve S2 segmentectomy for lung carcinoid tumor in a patient with tracheal bronchus.

Carcinoid tumors are relative rare neuroendocrine tumors of the lung. Bronchial obstruction's symptoms as cough, hemoptysis and pneumonia may be present when they are centrally located and lung-sparing surgery is usually preferred. We describe the case of an adult patient with a central right upper lobe carcinoid tumor and a concurrent tracheal bronchus malformation. This peculiar bronchial malformation allowed a sleeve S2 segmentectomy sparing the S1-S3 segments and the middle and lower lobes. The patient was discharged on day 4 without complications.

Benchmarking en cirugía torácica. Tercera edición / Benchmarking in Thoracic Surgery. Third Edition

Introducción: Benchmarking hace referencia a la comparación continuada de la eficiencia y la calidad entre productos y actividades con el objetivo fundamental de alcanzar la excelencia. Objetivo: Analizar los resultados del benchmarking realizado en 2013 con la actividad asistencial de Cirugía Torácica en el año 2012 en 17 servicios de Cirugía Torácica españoles participantes. Métodos: La fuente de información para el estudio ha sido el conjunto mínimo básico de datos de hospitalización correspondiente al año 2012. Los datos han sido proporcionados por los centros participantes, a partir de los informes de alta hospitalaria, sin intervención de los responsables de los correspondientes servicios asistenciales. Los casos objeto del estudio han sido todas las altas de hospitalización registradas en los centros participantes. Los episodios incluidos han sido los de enfermedad quirúrgica respiratoria (CDM4-Q) y los del servicio de Cirugía Torácica. La identificación de estos casos se realizó usando los códigos de la novena edición de la Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades, Modificación Clínica. Para valorar las diferencias en gravedad y complejidad de los casos se ha utilizado la clasificación de los grupos relacionados por el diagnóstico refinados. Resultados: Los diversos parámetros generales estudiados (casuística, estancia media, complicaciones, readmisiones, mortalidad y actividad) han tenido una gran variabilidad entre los participantes. El análisis concreto de intervenciones (lobectomía, neumonectomía, resecciones atípicas y neumotórax), también han oscilado considerablemente. Conclusiones: Se observa, al igual que en ediciones previas, una considerable variabilidad entre los grupos participantes. Existen áreas de mejora evidentes: estandarización de los procesos de admisión, evitando ingresos urgentes y mejorando la estancia preoperatoria; agilización de las altas hospitalarias y mejora de los informes de alta, reflejando toda la actividad y las complicaciones habidas. Algunas unidades de Cirugía Torácica deben hacer una revisión profunda de sus procesos porque pueden tener algunos parámetros con una desviación excesiva de la norma. También deben mejorarse los procesos de codificación de diagnósticos y comorbilidades

Introduction: Benchmarking entails continuous comparison of efficacy and quality among products and activities, with the primary objective of achieving excellence. Objective: To analyze the results of benchmarking performed in 2013 on clinical practices undertaken in 2012 in 17 Spanish thoracic surgery units. Methods: Study data were obtained from the basic minimum data set for hospitalization, registered in 2012. Data from hospital discharge reports were submitted by the participating groups, but staff from the corresponding departments did not intervene in data collection. Study cases all involved hospital discharges recorded in the participating sites. Episodes included were respiratory surgery (Major Diagnostic Category 04, Surgery), and those of the thoracic surgery unit. Cases were labelled using codes from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification. The refined diagnosis-related groups classification was used to evaluate differences in severity and complexity of cases. Results: General parameters (number of cases, mean stay, complications, readmissions, mortality, and activity) varied widely among the participating groups. Specific interventions (lobectomy, pneumonectomy, atypical resections, and treatment of pneumothorax) also varied widely. Conclusions: As in previous editions, practices among participating groups varied considerably. Some areas for improvement emerge: admission processes need to be standardized to avoid urgent admissions and to improve pre-operative care; hospital discharges should be streamlined and discharge reports improved by including all procedures and complications. Some units have parameters which deviate excessively from the norm, and these sites need to review their processes in depth. Coding of diagnoses and comorbidities is another area where improvement is needed

Benchmarking in Thoracic Surgery. Third Edition.

INTRODUCTION: Benchmarking entails continuous comparison of efficacy and quality among products and activities, with the primary objective of achieving excellence. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the results of benchmarking performed in 2013 on clinical practices undertaken in 2012 in 17 Spanish thoracic surgery units. METHODS: Study data were obtained from the basic minimum data set for hospitalization, registered in 2012. Data from hospital discharge reports were submitted by the participating groups, but staff from the corresponding departments did not intervene in data collection. Study cases all involved hospital discharges recorded in the participating sites. Episodes included were respiratory surgery (Major Diagnostic Category 04, Surgery), and those of the thoracic surgery unit. Cases were labelled using codes from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification. The refined diagnosis-related groups classification was used to evaluate differences in severity and complexity of cases. RESULTS: General parameters (number of cases, mean stay, complications, readmissions, mortality, and activity) varied widely among the participating groups. Specific interventions (lobectomy, pneumonectomy, atypical resections, and treatment of pneumothorax) also varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: As in previous editions, practices among participating groups varied considerably. Some areas for improvement emerge: admission processes need to be standardized to avoid urgent admissions and to improve pre-operative care; hospital discharges should be streamlined and discharge reports improved by including all procedures and complications. Some units have parameters which deviate excessively from the norm, and these sites need to review their processes in depth. Coding of diagnoses and comorbidities is another area where improvement is needed.