Performance of artificial intelligence in bariatric surgery: comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4, Bing, and Bard in the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery textbook of bariatric surgery questions.

BACKGROUND: The American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) textbook serves as a comprehensive resource for bariatric surgery, covering recent advancements and clinical questions. Testing artificial intelligence (AI) engines using this authoritative source ensures accurate and up-to-date information and provides insight in its potential implications for surgical education and training. OBJECTIVES: To determine the quality and to compare different large language models' (LLMs) ability to respond to textbook questions relating to bariatric surgery. SETTING: Remote. METHODS: Prompts to be entered into the LLMs were multiple-choice questions found in "The ASMBS Textbook of Bariatric Surgery, second Edition. The prompts were queried into 3 LLMs: OpenAI's ChatGPT-4, Microsoft's Bing, and Google's Bard. The generated responses were assessed based on overall accuracy, the number of correct answers according to subject matter, and the number of correct answers based on question type. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the number of responses per LLMs per category that were correct. RESULTS: Two hundred questions were used to query the AI models. There was an overall significant difference in the accuracy of answers, with an accuracy of 83.0% for ChatGPT-4, followed by Bard (76.0%) and Bing (65.0%). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference between the models' performance in question categories, with ChatGPT-4's demonstrating the highest proportion of correct answers in questions related to treatment and surgical procedures (83.1%) and complications (91.7%). There was also a significant difference between the performance in different question types, with ChatGPT-4 showing superior performance in inclusionary questions. Bard and Bing were unable to answer certain questions whereas ChatGPT-4 left no questions unanswered. CONCLUSIONS: LLMs, particularly ChatGPT-4, demonstrated promising accuracy when answering clinical questions related to bariatric surgery. Continued AI advancements and research is required to elucidate the potential applications of LLMs in training and education.

Harnessing artificial intelligence in bariatric surgery: comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4, Bing, and Bard in generating clinician-level bariatric surgery recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The formulation of clinical recommendations pertaining to bariatric surgery is essential in guiding healthcare professionals. However, the extensive and continuously evolving body of literature in bariatric surgery presents considerable challenge for staying abreast of latest developments and efficient information acquisition. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to streamline access to the salient points of clinical recommendations in bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVES: The study aims to appraise the quality and readability of AI-chat-generated answers to frequently asked clinical inquiries in the field of bariatric and metabolic surgery. SETTING: Remote. METHODS: Question prompts inputted into AI large language models (LLMs) and were created based on pre-existing clinical practice guidelines regarding bariatric and metabolic surgery. The prompts were queried into 3 LLMs: OpenAI ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Bing, and Google Bard. The responses from each LLM were entered into a spreadsheet for randomized and blinded duplicate review. Accredited bariatric surgeons in North America independently assessed appropriateness of each recommendation using a 5-point Likert scale. Scores of 4 and 5 were deemed appropriate, while scores of 1-3 indicated lack of appropriateness. A Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score was calculated to assess the readability of responses generated by each LLMs. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the 3 LLMs in their 5-point Likert scores, with mean values of 4.46 (SD .82), 3.89 (.80), and 3.11 (.72) for ChatGPT-4, Bard, and Bing (P < .001). There was a significant difference between the 3 LLMs in the proportion of appropriate answers, with ChatGPT-4 at 85.7%, Bard at 74.3%, and Bing at 25.7% (P < .001). The mean FRE scores for ChatGPT-4, Bard, and Bing, were 21.68 (SD 2.78), 42.89 (4.03), and 14.64 (5.09), respectively, with higher scores representing easier readability. CONCLUSIONS: LLM-based AI chat models can effectively generate appropriate responses to clinical questions related to bariatric surgery, though the performance of different models can vary greatly. Therefore, caution should be taken when interpreting clinical information provided by LLMs, and clinician oversight is necessary to ensure accuracy. Future investigation is warranted to explore how LLMs might enhance healthcare provision and clinical decision-making in bariatric surgery.

Short-term postoperative outcomes for obese versus non-obese inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing bowel resection: a propensity score matched analysis.

PURPOSE: Up to 40% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are obese. Obesity is a well-known risk factor for increased perioperative morbidity, but this risk has never been quantified in IBD patients undergoing abdominal surgery using the United States National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. This study aims to compare postoperative morbidity between obese and non-obese patients undergoing bowel resection for IBD using recent NIS data. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent bowel resection for IBD from 2015 to 2019 were identified in the NIS using ICD-10-CM coding. Patients were stratified into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) and non-obese groups, then propensity score matched (PSM) for demographic, operative, and hospital characteristics. The primary outcome was postoperative in-hospital morbidity. Secondary outcomes included postoperative in-hospital mortality, system-specific postoperative complications, total admission healthcare costs, and length of stay (LOS). Univariable and multivariable regressions were utilized. RESULTS: Overall, 6601 non-obese patients and 671 obese patients were identified. The PSM cohort included 659 patients per group. Obese patients had significantly increased odds of experiencing postoperative in-hospital morbidity (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.10-2.03, p = 0.010) compared to non-obese patients. Specifically, obese patients experienced increased gastrointestinal complications (aOR 1.49, 95% CI 1.00-2.24, p = 0.050), and genitourinary complications (aOR 1.71, 95% CI 1.12-2.61, p = 0.013). There were no differences in total admission healthcare costs (MD - $2256.32, 95% CI - 19,144.54-14,631.9, p = 0.79) or LOS (MD 0.16 days, 95% CI - 0.93-1.27, p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Obese IBD patients are at greater risk of postoperative in-hospital morbidity than non-obese IBD patients. This supports targeted preoperative weight loss protocols for IBD patients to optimize surgical outcomes.

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols following emergency intra-abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery improve postoperative outcomes as compared to conventional care. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, WoS, CENTRAL, and Pubmed were searched from inception to December 2022. Articles were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCT) or non-randomized studies comparing ERAS protocols to conventional care for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery. The outcomes included postoperative length of stay (LOS), postoperative morbidity, prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI), and readmission. An inverse variance random effects meta-analysis was performed. A risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane tools. Certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE. RESULTS: After screening 1018 citations, 20 studies with 1615 patients in ERAS programs and 1933 patients receiving conventional care were included. There was a reduction in postoperative LOS in the ERAS group for patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery (MD3.35, 95% CI 2.52-4.17, p < 0.00001) and lower GI surgery (MD2.80, 95% CI 2.62-2.99, p < 0.00001). There was a reduction in postoperative morbidity in the ERAS group for patients undergoing upper GI surgery (RR0.56, 95% CI 0.30-1.02, p = 0.06) and lower GI surgery (RR 0.66, 95%CI 0.52-0.85, p = 0.001). In the upper and lower GI subgroup, there were nonsignificant reductions in PPOI in the ERAS groups (RR0.59, 95% CI 0.30-1.17, p = 0.13; RR0.49, 95% CI 0.21-1.14, p = 0.10). There was a nonsignificant increased risk of readmission in the ERAS group (RR1.60, 95% CI 0.57-4.50, p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: There is low-to-very-low certainty evidence supporting the use ERAS protocols for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery. The currently available data are limited by imprecision.

Long-term outcomes following Dor, Toupet, and Nissen fundoplication: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In the surgical management of GERD, the traditional procedure is laparoscopic total (Nissen) fundoplication. However, partial fundoplication has been advocated as providing similar reflux control while potentially minimizing dysphagia. The comparative outcomes of different approaches to fundoplication are a topic of ongoing debate and long-term outcomes remain uncertain. This study aims to compare long-term gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) related outcomes following different fundoplication procedures. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases were searched up to November 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of fundoplications reporting long-term (> 5 years) outcomes. The primary outcome was incidence of dysphagia. Secondary outcomes included incidence of heartburn/reflux, regurgitation, inability to belch, abdominal bloating, reoperation, and patient satisfaction. DataParty, which uses Python 3.8.10 was used to perform the network meta-analysis. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence with the GRADE framework. RESULTS: 13 RCTs were included, with 2063 patients across Nissen (360°), Dor (anterior 180°-200°), and Toupet (posterior 270°) fundoplications. Network estimates demonstrated that Toupet had lower incidence of dysphagia compared to Nissen (OR 0.285; 95% CrI 0.06-0.958). There were no differences in dysphagia between Toupet and Dor (OR 0.473, 95% CrI 0.072-2.835) or between Dor and Nissen (OR 1.689, 95% CrI 0.403-7.699). The three fundoplication types were comparable in all other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: All three approaches of fundoplication share similar long-term outcomes, with the Toupet fundoplication likely providing the best long-term durability with lowest odds of developing postoperative dysphagia.

Laparoscopic ovarian transposition prior to pelvic radiation in young women with anorectal malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence.

AIM: Young women undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for pelvic malignancies are at risk of developing premature ovarian insufficiency. Ovarian transposition (OT) aims to preserve ovarian function in these patients. However, its role in anorectal malignancy has yet to be firmly established. The aim of this review was to determine the effectiveness of laparoscopic OT in preserving ovarian function in premenopausal women undergoing neoadjuvant pelvic RT for anorectal malignancies. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were systematically searched from inception through to May 2022. Articles were included if they evaluated ovarian function after OT in women with anorectal malignancies undergoing pelvic RT. The primary outcome was ovarian function preservation. The secondary outcome was 30-day postoperative morbidity following OT. RESULTS: From 207 citations, 10 studies with 133 patients with rectal or anal cancer who underwent OT prior to RT were included. Meta-analysis of pooled proportions of preserved ovarian function demonstrated an incidence of 66.9% (95% CI 55.0-79.0%, I2 = 43%). The 30-day postoperative morbidity rate was 1.2% (n = 1). There was heterogeneity in interventions and outcome reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic OT in premenopausal patients undergoing pelvic radiation for anorectal malignancies might be an effective technique at reducing ovarian exposure to RT. The meta-analyses must be interpreted within the context of clinical heterogeneity of the included studies. Further studies are required to fully investigate the outcomes of OT in patients undergoing pelvic radiation for anorectal malignancies.

Total Abdominal Colectomy Versus Diverting Loop Ileostomy and Antegrade Colonic Lavage for Fulminant Clostridioides Colitis: Analysis of the National Inpatient Sample 2016-2019.

BACKGROUND: When surgery is indicated for fulminant Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), total abdominal colectomy (TAC) is the most common approach. Diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) with antegrade colonic lavage has been introduced as a colon-sparing surgical approach. Prior analyses of National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data suggested equivalent postoperative outcomes between groups but did not evaluate healthcare resource utilization. As such, we aimed to analyze a more recent NIS cohort to compare these two approaches in terms of both postoperative outcomes and healthcare resource utilization. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the NIS from 2016 to 2019 was conducted. The primary outcome was postoperative in-hospital morbidity. Secondary outcomes included postoperative in-hospital mortality, system-specific postoperative complications, total admission cost, and length of stay (LOS). Univariable and multivariable regressions were utilized to compare the two operative approaches. RESULTS: In total, 886 patients underwent TAC and 409 patients underwent DLI with antegrade colonic lavage. Adjusted analyses demonstrated no difference between groups in postoperative in-hospital morbidity (aOR 0.96, 95%CI 0.64-1.44, p = 0.851) or in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.15, 95%CI 0.81-1.64, p = 0.436). Patients undergoing TAC experienced significantly decreased total admission cost (MD $79,715.34, 95%CI 133,841-25,588, p = 0.004) and shorter postoperative LOS (MD 4.06 days, 95%CI 6.96-1.15, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: There are minimal differences between TAC and DLI with antegrade colonic lavage for fulminant CDI in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Healthcare resource utilization, however, is significantly improved when patients undergo TAC as evidenced by clinically important decreases in total admission cost and postoperative LOS.

Ghost Ileostomy Versus Loop Ileostomy Following Oncologic Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare ghost ileostomy (GI) and loop ileostomy (LI) in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: LIs are often fashioned to protect downstream anastomoses following oncologic resection for low rectal cancer at medium-to-high risk of anastomotic leak. More recently, GIs have been utilized in patients with low-to-medium risk anastomoses to reduce the rate of unnecessary stomas. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Studies investigating the use of GI in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer were included. The primary outcomes were anastomotic leak and postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included stoma-related complications and length of stay (LOS). Pairwise meta-analyses were performed with inverse variance random effects. RESULTS: From 242 citations, 14 studies with 946 patients were included. In comparative studies, 359 patients were undergoing GI and 266 patients were undergoing LI. Pairwise meta-analysis revealed no differences in the prevalence of anastomotic leak (OR 1.40, 95%CI .73-2.68, P = .31), morbidity (OR .76, 95%CI .44-1.30, P = .32), or LOS (SMD -.05, 95%CI -.33-.23, P = .72). International Study Group of Rectal Cancer anastomotic leak grades were as follows: Grade A (GI 0% vs LI 13.3%), Grade B (GI 80.9% vs LI 86.7%), Grade C (GI 19.1% vs LI 0%). CONCLUSIONS: GI appears to be a safe alternative to LI following oncologic resection for rectal cancer. Larger, prospective comparative studies are warranted to evaluate the use of GI in patients deemed to be at low-to-medium risk of anastomotic leak.

The Effect of Chronic Kidney Disease or End-stage Kidney Disease on Perioperative Outcomes and Healthcare Utilization in Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: As chronic kidney disease (CKD) has a higher prevalence in patients with obesity, there is an increasing need to understand the safety of bariatric surgery for patients with advanced CKD. This study determined if short-term bariatric surgical outcomes and healthcare utilization differ in patients with advanced CKD. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was performed. Patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery from 2015 to 2019 were included. Patients without CKD, with CKD, and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) were compared for outcome differences. Univariate and multivariable regression was used to determine the association between perioperative outcomes to CKD status. RESULTS: The unadjusted analysis found significantly higher mortality and overall complication rate in CKD and ESKD patients, however, after adjustment for confounders, only the ICU admission rate remained significantly higher for patients CKD compared to non-CKD patients (odds ratio 4.21, 95% CI [3.29-5.39]). Length of stay was longer for patients with CKD (mean difference (MD) 0.14 days, 95% CI, [0.04, 0.23]) and patients with ESKD (MD 0.27 days, 95% CI, [0.10, 0.43]) compared to non-CKD patients. Patients with ESKD had higher admission costs compared to non-CKD patients (MD $1982.65). CONCLUSION: Patients with CKD and ESKD have increased healthcare utilization and higher rates of ICU admission after bariatric surgery compared to non-CKD patients. Otherwise, there is no significant difference in other post-operative complications and mortality. Bariatric surgery may therefore be safely offered to this patient population in hospitals with on-site ICU capacity.