RetroSternal--Looking Back at Thymectomy for Myasthenia Gravis

National Use and Short-term Outcomes of Video and Robot-Assisted Thoracoscopic Thymectomies

BACKGROUND

Transsternal open thymectomy has long been the most widely used approach for thymectomy, but recent decades have seen the introduction of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), such as video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) thymectomy. This retrospective cohort study provides a national comparison of trends, outcomes, and resource utilization of open, VATS, and RATS thymectomy.

METHODS

Admissions for thymectomies from 2008 to 2014 were identified in the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were identified as undergoing open, VATS, or RATS thymectomy. Propensity score-matched analyses were used to compare overall complication rates, length of stay (LOS), and cost of VATS and RATS thymectomies.

RESULTS

An estimated 23,087 patients underwent thymectomy during the study period: open in 16,025 (69%) and MIS in 7217 (31%). Of the MIS cohort, 4119 (18%) underwent VATS and 3097 (13%) underwent RATS. Performance of RATS and VATS thymectomy increased while that of open thymectomy declined. Baseline characteristics between VATS and RATS were similar, except more women underwent VATS thymectomy. No differences in LOS or overall complication rates were appreciable in this study. VATS was associated with the lowest cost of the 3 approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate the increasing adoption of MIS and declining use of the open surgical approach for thymectomy. There are no differences in overall complication rates between RATS and VATS thymectomy, but RATS is associated with greater cost and lower cardiac complication rates.

Immunotherapy in myasthenia gravis in the era of biologics

No consensus has been reached on the ideal therapeutic algorithm for myasthenia gravis (MG). Most patients with MG require induction therapy with high doses of corticosteroids and maintenance with an immunosuppressant. Severe cases and acute worsening require intravenous immunoglobulin or plasmapheresis before oral immunosuppressants start having an effect. However, biologics are emerging as important therapeutic tools that promise to provide better corticosteroid sparing effects than standard treatments and can even induce remission. In particular, eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody against complement C5, has been approved by the FDA for refractory MG on the basis of a phase III trial. Rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that depletes peripheral B cells, has also been effective in many large uncontrolled series, although was not in a small phase III trial. Whether the newer anti-CD20 agents ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, obinutuzumab, ublituximab or inebilizumab will be more effective remains unclear. Belimumab, an antibody against the B cell trophic factor BAFF, was ineffective in phase III trials, and efgartigimod, which depletes antibodies, was effective in a phase II study. Some anti-cytokine agents relevant to MG immunopathogenesis also seem promising. Checkpoint inhibitors can trigger MG in some patients, necessitating early intervention. Increased availability of new biologics provides targeted immunotherapies and the opportunities to develop more specific therapies.