Rius, Daniel Rodríguez

AbstractBackgroundThere is a knowledge gap regarding lobar versus sublobar resection for atypical carcinoid (AC) of the lung. As such, the authors sought to understand and analyze the outcomes of sublobar resection versus lobectomy in this patient population.MethodsA retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database was performed to compare overall survival (OS) between patients treated with lobectomy and patients treated with sublobar resection for AC of the lung between the years 2004 and 2016. Patient characteristics were compared with χ2 tests. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate OS distributions, and the log‐rank test was used to compare distributions by treatment strategy. A multivariable Cox regression model was used to assess associations between the treatment strategy and OS. A propensity score matching method was also implemented to further eliminate treatment selection bias in the study sample.ResultsThe database identified 669 patients with T1–T4 and N0–N3 lung ACs that were surgically resected. Unadjusted Kaplan–Meier survival curves did not demonstrate an OS difference between lobectomy and sublobar resection (p = .094). After propensity score matching, curves demonstrated a numerical improvement in OS with lobectomy; however, it was not statistically significant (p = .5). In a subgroup analysis, lobectomy and node‐negative disease were associated with the best OS, whereas sublobar resection and node‐positive disease were associated with the worst OS (p < .0001). Nodal involvement was associated with worse survival, regardless of surgical treatment (p < .0001).ConclusionsIn patients with T1–T4 and N0–N3 ACs of the lung, lobectomy was not associated with an improvement in OS in comparison with sublobar resection.

Importance: Alloplastic implants have been applied successfully in reconstruction of the external ear, either for congenital microtia or traumatic injury. Objective: The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive systematic review of alloplastic implant materials utilized in the reconstruction of the external ear stratified by indication, specific implant type, postoperative complications, and aesthetic outcomes. Evidence Review: A comprehensive systematic review of published literature on alloplastic external ear reconstruction data was conducted utilizing Medline/PubMed database without timeframe limitations in June 2019. Articles were stratified by (1) indication (microtia versus trauma reconstruction) and (2) implant material type. All postoperative complications were recorded and comparatively analyzed between implant types. Aesthetic outcomes were also identified and compared between implant types. Findings: A total of 755 patients (14 case series; follow-up range = 3 months--10 years) met the criteria for this study. Overall complication rate was 12.05% across all indications and materials used. The most frequent complications reported were graft exposure (7.8%), graft explantation (1.72%), and wound dehiscence (0.8%). Of the patients requiring graft explantation (n = 13), 7 (53.85%) received Medpor implants, and the other 6 (46.15%) were identified in silicone implants. Infection was only reported in Medpor implants. The overall rate of an acceptable aesthetic outcome was 99.34%. Conclusions and Relevance: Alloplastic implants are a reliable means of achieving an acceptable complication profile in external ear reconstruction. While there was an overall high rate of acceptable aesthetic outcomes, the studies evaluated in this systematic review differed in their criteria for final evaluation of aesthetic outcomes.