
==== Front
Front Surg
Front Surg
Front. Surg.
Frontiers in Surgery
2296-875X
Frontiers Media S.A.

10.3389/fsurg.2024.1482274
Surgery
Editorial
Editorial: Minimally invasive cardiothoracic surgery: cost-effectiveness, prognostic factors, and outcomes
Rahouma Mohamed 1 2 *

Baudo Massimo 3

Kumar Akshay 4

El-Sayed Ahmed Magdy 5 6

1 Cardiothoracic Surgery Department, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, United States
2 Surgical Oncology Department, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
3 Department of Cardiac Surgery Research, Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, PA, United States
4 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States
5 Cardiothoracic Surgery Department, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, United States
6 Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt
Edited and Reviewed by: Marco Scarci, Hammersmith Hospital, United Kingdom

* Correspondence: Mohamed Rahouma mhmdrahouma@gmail.com; mmr2011@med.cornell.edu
03 9 2024
2024
11 148227418 8 2024
23 8 2024
© 2024 Rahouma, Baudo, Kumar and El-Sayed Ahmed.
2024
Rahouma, Baudo, Kumar and El-Sayed Ahmed
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
minimally invasive
cardiothoracic surgery
prognostic factors
esophageal cancer
NSCLC
lymph node harvest
section-at-acceptanceThoracic Surgery
==== Body
pmcEditorial on the Research Topic Minimally invasive cardiothoracic surgery: cost-effectiveness, prognostic factors, and outcomesOver the years, minimally invasive cardiothoracic surgery (MICTS) has gained significant traction, largely due to its benefits in reducing postoperative pain, lower risk of infection and hospital length of stay (1, 2). Despite initial concerns regarding the challenges of limited exposure in complex procedures, longer operative times, and patient safety, the refinement of surgical techniques and the development of specialized tools have made MICTS a widely accepted alternative to traditional open surgery (3). Current research highlights the long-term effectiveness and safety of MICTS, demonstrating that major cardiothoracic operations can be performed with outcomes comparable to open surgery (1, 2). The feasibility of MICTS varies among patients. Thus, underscoring the need for careful selection based on individual prognostic factors in the context of personalized medicine is important.

This research topic in Frontiers in Surgery comes to shed light on the surgical outcomes, prognostic factors, and cost-effectiveness of MICTS including mini-thoracotomy, mini-sternotomy, video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), and robotic-assisted surgery. This topic includes 6 manuscripts (1 mini-review and 5 original research articles).

In their study on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Hurley et al. compared robotic-assisted and VATS lymph node dissection and showed that in robotic operations lymph node dissection was more extensive compared to VATS (p = 0.0002). This was in line with the recent ROMAN, RAVAL, and RVLob randomized trials (4–6). However, evidence is still controversial in literature, as highlighted by a meta-analysis of retrospective studies that suggested no significant differences between the two approaches (7). This crucial topic in NSCLC among others was reviewed by Patel and Bille in their mini-review on lymph node dissection in lung cancer surgery (Patel and Brille). Their paper focuses on the debate over the best approach to lymph node assessment in lung cancer and that recent studies show no significant survival difference between mediastinal lymph node dissection and nodal sampling. As minimally invasive techniques like robotic surgery advance, they promise improved lymph node sampling and outcomes, but the ideal lymph node resection strategy remains a topic of ongoing debate.

Hu et al. reported in their work that five patients with traumatic flail chest were treated with a new 3D printed external fixation guide combined with VATS. All patients had successful operations, each lasting less than an hour, and experienced minimal blood loss. Within 6 h postoperatively, the patients were able to get out of bed and move around, reporting a significant reduction in chest pain and a substantial improvement in their ability to cough. Additionally, their results demonstrated a thoracic volume recovery rate of around 90%, resolving atelectasis and correcting restrictive ventilation dysfunction.

Two included articles analyzed predictors in esophageal cancer surgery (Tupper et al., Zhang et al.). Tupper et al. showed in their adjusted multivariable logistic regression that there was a 19% increase in 1-year mortality odds and 39% increase in anastomotic leak odds for every additional operative hour. Zhang et al. reported that hybrid/open esophagectomy, longer operation time, intraoperative blood transfusions, and prognostic nutritional index were independently associated with unplanned intensive care unit admission. Besides, at subgroup analysis minimally invasive surgery was associated with lower rates of intraoperative blood transfusions.

Finally, the paper by Li et al. analyzed hemodynamic changes of left subclavian artery (LSA) after simulating the covering half of the ostium by thoracic endovascular aortic repair through computational fluid dynamics. Their research showed that partially covering the LSA ostium reduces blood flow, velocity, and wall shear stress, potentially accelerating arteriosclerosis in the LSA due to hemodynamic changes. Furthermore, this partial coverage causes turbulent flow and increased vascular pressure at the orifice, which may damage the arterial endothelium and heighten the risk of arteriosclerosis. Additionally, the turbulence and low-velocity zones behind the stent membrane could lead to local acute thrombosis.

The articles included in this research topic provided interesting updates in different cardiothoracic surgeries regarding possible predicting factors that need further clinical evaluation to be validated. Nowadays, minimally invasive surgery is increasingly considered in cardiothoracic surgery, but certain drawbacks associated with this technique must be carefully weighed when selecting the appropriate surgical approach for each patient.

Author contributions

MR: Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MB: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AK: Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ME-S: Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
==== Refs
References

1. Doenst T Diab M Sponholz C Bauer M Färber G . The opportunities and limitations of minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Dtsch Arzteblatt Int. (2017) 114 :777–84. 10.3238/arztebl.2017.0777
2. Wong MKH Sit AKY Au TWK . Minimally invasive thoracic surgery: beyond surgical access. J Thorac Dis. (2018) 10 :S1884–91. 10.21037/jtd.2018.05.196 30026975
3. Baudo M Rahouma M Khan F Ibrahim DA Elkasem FA Kamel M Thoracic malignancies: insights into different therapeutic and technical options. CPQ Cancer. (2018) 1 (4):01–14. Available online at: https://www.cientperiodique.com/journal/fulltext/CPQCR/1/4/24
4. Veronesi G Abbas AE-S Muriana P Lembo R Bottoni E Perroni G Perioperative outcome of robotic approach versus manual videothoracoscopic major resection in patients affected by early lung cancer: results of a randomized multicentric study (ROMAN study). Front Oncol. (2021) 11 :726408. 10.3389/fonc.2021.726408 34568057
5. Jin R Zheng Y Yuan Y Han D Cao Y Zhang Y Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: short-term results of a randomized clinical trial (RVlob trial). Ann Surg. (2022) 275 :295–302. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004922 33938492
6. Patel YS Baste J-M Shargall Y Waddell TK Yasufuku K Machuca TN Robotic lobectomy is cost-effective and provides comparable health utility scores to video-assisted lobectomy: early results of the RAVAL trial. Ann Surg. (2023) 278 :841–9. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006073 37551615
7. Hu X Wang M . Efficacy and safety of robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) compare with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for lung lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. (2019) 22 :169–78. 10.2174/1386207322666190411113040 30973106
