A simple technique for pectus bar removal using a modified Nuss procedure

Use of Transesophageal Echocardiography for Enhanced Safety During Bar Removal Procedures After Minimally Invasive Repair of Pectus Excavatum

Background: Minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum involves placement of retrosternal support (Nuss) bars. Hardware removal has been rarely associated with life-threatening hemorrhage from the heart, aorta, internal mammary arteries, and/or lung. There is no accepted standard intraoperative monitoring technique used during removal. We hypothesized that the use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) during Nuss bar removal would enhance safety of the procedure and be cost-effective. Methods: IRB-approved retrospective review of patients who underwent Nuss bar removal with intraoperative TEE monitoring over a 4-year period, from March 2013 to May 2017, was completed. Bar removal procedures were performed supine, under general anesthesia. TEE images were monitored and any distortion of the cardiac silhouette, new pericardial effusion, and/or cardiac arrhythmias would be considered evidence of possible bar adherence, triggering possible conversion to sternotomy or thoracotomy. Results: In total, 87 consecutive patients, mean age of 20 years, were identified. Bars had been in place for a mean of 30 months. Average procedure time was 67 minutes. No patients experienced arrhythmias, cardiac injury, or significant hemorrhage during removal. TEE gave excellent visualization of the cardiac silhouette and pericardium in all cases. No patient required insertion of an arterial line, a postoperative chest X-ray, or overnight hospitalization. Patients were discharged from the recovery room an average of 89 minutes postprocedure. Conclusion: TEE offers a minimally invasive safe way to visualize the pericardium and its contents during Nuss bar removal. Significant cardiac/mediastinal injuries should be immediately visible. The use of TEE is cost-effective and allows safe discharge the day of surgery.

Combined Ravitch and Nuss procedure for patients with severe pectus excavatum: technique and initial results

The Nuss procedure for pectus excavatum (PE) is both less invasive and very simple compared to the Ravitch procedure. However, it may be difficult to perform the Nuss procedure in cases of severe PE. Therefore, we developed a Combined Ravitch and Nuss (CRN) procedure and examined its effectiveness in patients with severe PE. Nine patients with severe PE underwent the CRN procedure. Data on patient characteristics and perioperative results were collected retrospectively. The median Haller index (HI) was 15.4 (range, 6.3-29.3). No significant intraoperative adverse events were noted. Postoperatively, marked improvements in HI were seen in all cases (3.29, range, 2.72-4.96). Two surgical site infections on the shallow layer and one wound seroma occurred. No recurrences were observed during the observation period. Our novel CRN procedure is useful for achieving adequate and sustainable sternal elevation with less invasiveness for patients with severe PE.

Pectus bar removal - why, when, where and how

OBJECTIVE

Despite its less invasive nature, the widespread use of the minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE) procedure has been associated with a significant number of serious complications. On the other hand, Pectus bar removal (PBR) is often considered a simple procedure and often scheduled in an outpatient setting. However, several studies report near-fatal complications not only during bar placement, but also during bar removal. The aim of our study was to clarify why a pectus bar should be removed, timing for removal, where PBR should be performed, and overall setup for safe removal.

METHODS

A comprehensive review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, searching for articles published since 1998 in English. "Pectus bar removal AND (near-fatal) complications" were the applied terms. Inclusion criteria were articles reporting on the focus of PBR after MIRPE. Eligible study designs included (retrospective) case study series, case report and reviews. Full-text articles in which the technique in general was described were omitted.

RESULTS

Recently published results of an online survey raised awareness about type and number of possible complications during PBR. Furthermore, our comprehensive literature review identified only a few, but serious complications during PBR.

CONCLUSIONS

PBR has a high safety profile but in rare cases may be associated with major complications such as life-threatening hemorrhage from various thoracic sources. This risk is higher in patients with a history of complex MIPRE. In an effort to decrease these complications we recommend bilateral opening of surgical incisions, unbending the bar and meticulous mobilization of the bar. To manage these complications if they occur, we recommend removal in a hospital setting with adequate resources and personal including cardiac surgeons. If the postoperative course is uneventful discharge on the same day is reasonable.

Guidelines for Opioid Prescribing in Children and Adolescents After Surgery: An Expert Panel Opinion

IMPORTANCE

Opioids are frequently prescribed to children and adolescents after surgery. Prescription opioid misuse is associated with high-risk behavior in youth. Evidence-based guidelines for opioid prescribing practices in children are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assemble a multidisciplinary team of health care experts and leaders in opioid stewardship, review current literature regarding opioid use and risks unique to pediatric populations, and develop a broad framework for evidence-based opioid prescribing guidelines for children who require surgery.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Reviews of relevant literature were performed including all English-language articles published from January 1, 1988, to February 28, 2019, found via searches of the PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Pediatric was defined as children younger than 18 years. Animal and experimental studies, case reports, review articles, and editorials were excluded. Selected articles were graded using tools from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine 2011 levels of evidence. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument was applied throughout guideline creation. Consensus was determined using a modified Delphi technique.

FINDINGS

Overall, 14 574 articles were screened for inclusion, with 217 unique articles included for qualitative synthesis. Twenty guideline statements were generated from a 2-day in-person meeting and subsequently reviewed, edited, and endorsed externally by pediatric surgical specialists, the American Pediatric Surgery Association Board of Governors, the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Surgery Executive Committee, and the American College of Surgeons Board of Regents. Review of the literature and guideline statements underscored 3 primary themes: (1) health care professionals caring for children who require surgery must recognize the risks of opioid misuse associated with prescription opioids, (2) nonopioid analgesic use should be optimized in the perioperative period, and (3) patient and family education regarding perioperative pain management and safe opioid use practices must occur both before and after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These are the first opioid-prescribing guidelines to address the unique needs of children who require surgery. Health care professionals caring for children and adolescents in the perioperative period should optimize pain management and minimize risks associated with opioid use by engaging patients and families in opioid stewardship efforts.

Clinical application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in pectus excavatum patients following Nuss procedure

Background

Evaluate the effect of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol on postoperative recovery quality of pectus excavatum patients with Nuss procedure.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed on patients undergoing Nuss procedure from the Department of Thoracic Surgery of The Cancer Hospital of China Medical University between September 2016 and September 2019. Patients were divided into 2 groups by perioperative management: the traditional procedure group (T group) and the ERAS strategy group (E group). The outcome measures were postoperative drainage time, postoperative hospital time, and postoperative complications measured by the Clavien-Dindo method.

Results

Of the 168 patients from this time period, 148 met the inclusion criteria (75 in Group T and 73 in Group E). All operations involved in this study were completed successfully. There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups with respect to baseline demographics (P>0.05). In Group E, postoperative drainage time (2.53±0.72 vs. 3.45±2.07 days) and postoperative hospitalization time (4.96±1.48 vs. 7.71±7.78 days) were statistically significantly better than those in Group T (P<0.05). There was no difference in overall postoperative complications as measured by Clavien–Dindo score.

Conclusions

The measures of no indwelling urinary catheter (IDUC), laryngeal mask anesthesia, and indwelling tubule drainage can improve postoperative recovery quality of pectus excavatum patients following Nuss procedure.

A new type of forceps for stabilizer removal after NUSS procedure

This paper describes the design and application of a new type of forceps for stabilizer removal after NUSS procedure. The forceps are made up of two strips of streamline forceps, which is composed of forceps handle and forceps head. One forceps head was designed as "Y" shaped, with an "L" shaped convex teeth set on each tip. It protrudes a small cylinder on the end platform of the other forceps head. Compared to the traditional operation method, with utilization of the forceps for stabilizer removal, it is expected that the operation time will be shortened and the bleeding will be reduced. The clinical application showed a good value of using the forceps in stabilizer removal after NUSS procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Minimization of the complications associated with bar removal after the Nuss procedure in adults

BACKGROUND

Pectus bar removal after Nuss repair is associated with the risk of major complications that are underreported. Of these, surgical bleeding is the main concern. Old age and placement of more than one bar are reported risk factors for pectus bar removal. In this study, we presented our experience regarding the modified skills required to minimize complications during bar removal, especially in adult patients.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent pectus bar removal as the final stage of Nuss repair between August 2014 and December 2018 were included. The patients were positioned in the supine position. The bar(s) was (were) removed from the left side via the bilateral approach using the previous surgical scars after full dissection of the ends of the bar lateral to the hinge point and after straightening the right end of the bar. Bleeding was carefully checked after removal. An elastic bandage was wrapped around the chest after wound closure to prevent wound hematoma/seroma formation.

RESULTS

A total of 283 patients (260 male and 23 female), with a mean age of 22.8 ± 6.6 years at the time of the Nuss repair were included. The mean duration of pectus bar maintenance interval was 4.3 years (range: 1.9 to 9.8 years). A total of 200 patients (71%) had two bars. The mean estimated blood loss was 11.7 mL (range: 10 mL to 100 mL). Nine patients (3.1%) experienced complications, six had pneumothorax and three had wound hematoma. No major bleeding occurred. Adults and the use of more than one bar were not associated with a significantly higher rate of complications (P = 0.400 and P = 0.260, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Adult patients and removal of multiple bars were not risk factors for complications in our cohort. Skill in preventing intraoperative mediastinal traction, carefully controlling bleeding, and reducing the effect of dead space around the wounds could minimize the risk of bleeding complications. A multicentric study or case accumulation is needed to further evaluate the risk factors of removal pectus bar(s).

Ultrasound-Guided Bar Edge Labeling in the Perioperative Assessment of Nuss Bar Removal

INTRODUCTION

Nuss bar removal after minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum in patients where bar ends are not palpable, can be a challenging procedure for the surgeon; a blind dissection toward the bar edges may lead to intercostal vessels or deep intercostal muscle injuries. In this article, we describe a fast, repeatable, low-cost technique to detect bar edge and stabilizers.

METHODS

A perioperative scan is performed by means of a portable ultrasonograph a few minutes before the operation. The bar edge stabilizer is detected as a hyperechogenic image with a concentric crescent while the bar edge is detected as a hyperechogenic dashed line with net edges. The scan is performed, and the actual projection on the skin of the metal plaque bulk is then labeled on the patient's chest by an ink marker.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that this method may improve morbidity, operative time, and consequently, hospitalization length and costs.

Routine use of chest radiographs in the post-operative management of pectus bar removal: necessity or futility

BACKGROUND

While there is literature on techniques for pectus bar removal, there are limited reports on post-operative management. This can include obtaining a postoperative chest radiograph (CXR) despite the minimal risk of associated intra-thoracic complications. This is a review of our experience with bar removal and lack of routine post-operative CXR.

METHODS

A single institution retrospective chart review was performed from 2000 to 2015. Patients who underwent a pectus bar removal procedure were included. We assessed operative timing of bar placement and removal, procedure length, intra-operative and post-operative complications and post-operative CXR findings, specifically the rate of pneumothoraces.

RESULTS

450 patients were identified in this study. Median duration of bar placement prior to removal was 35 months (interquartile range 30 and 36 months). Sixtey-four patients obtained a post-operative CXR. Of these, only one (58%) film revealed a pneumothorax; this was not drained. A CXR was not obtained in 386 (86%) patients with no immediate or delayed complications from this practice. Median follow-up time for all patients was 11 months (interquartile range 7.5-17 months).

DISCUSSION

The risk for a clinically relevant pneumothorax is minimal following bar removal. This suggests that not obtaining routine imaging following bar removal may be a safe practice.

The role of chest radiography following pectus bar removal

PURPOSE

Surgical correction of pectus excavatum (PE) via a minimally invasive approach involves placement of a steel bar, which is subsequently removed. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the incidence of pneumothorax and the role for chest radiography (CXR) in patients undergoing pectus bar removal.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 84 patients who underwent pectus bar removal from 2006 to 2014 was performed. Results of postoperative CXR, repeat imaging, need for chest thoracostomy tube placement, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean Haller index prior to correction was 4.3 ± 0.9. The mean time between PE repair and bar removal was 2.3 ± 0.6 years. Sixty-one patients (72.6 %) had a postoperative CXR. Thirty-one (50.8 %) had no acute findings, 20 (32.8 %) had findings of atelectasis or subcutaneous emphysema, and 10 (16.4 %) had a pneumothorax. One patient (1.6 %) had a second postoperative CXR for a small pneumothorax and rib fractures. There were two complications (2.4 %). No chest tubes were placed for pneumothorax, and 95 % of patients were discharged the day of surgery.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative CXR following pectus bar removal is unnecessary given the low incidence of postoperative pneumothorax requiring intervention. Patients can be safely discharged the day of surgery without the need for routine postoperative chest imaging.

Descending aortic replacement after Nuss for pectus excavatum in a Marfan patient-Case report

INTRODUCTION

The Nuss procedure for pectus excavatum (PE) repair has been successfully performed in Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients however there is concern for future risk of aortic dilation/rupture and need for emergent access with support bars in place.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a 45 year-old male with MFS that required descending aortic replacement shortly after modified Nuss repair.

DISCUSSION

The majority of MFS patients have severe PE and repair with the Nuss procedure is not uncommon. The risk for life threatening aortic dilation, dissection, or rupture in such patients is a concern when utilizing this technique. Our work has been reported in line with the CARE criteria.

CONCLUSION

Nuss repair should be considered in MFS patients with technique modifications and careful consideration of future risk of aortic dilation and rupture.