The da Vinci robotic surgery system for the management of endometrial cancer: a single-center experience.

The aim of this study was to report our single-center experience of the da Vinci robotic surgery system in the management of endometrial cancer (EC) patients during 2019-2023. We descriptively summarized the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes. Moreover, we conducted subgroup analyses based on obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) and the intraoperative use of indocyanine green dye (ICG). Overall, 100 patients were analyzed. Eighty-five patients (85%) were obese. The mean operative time and estimated blood loss (EBL) were 240.84 ± 70.08 min (range: 110-720) and 104.2 ± 80.3 ml (range: 20-500), respectively. The mean number of retrieved pelvic LNs was 3.01 ± 3.06 (range: 0-15). The use of ICG was employed in 58 (58%). Only a single patient (1%) underwent conversion to laparotomy. Besides, only three (3%) patients experienced vaginal laceration intraoperatively, respectively. The mean hospital stay was 1.34 ± 0.69 days (range: 1-5). No patient experienced postoperative complications. Most tumors had endometrioid histology (82%), grade-1 tumor (49%), and stage-1A disease (67%). At 3-year follow-up, only two patients (2%) developed recurrence. Patients who received the ICG had significantly lower operative time (225.86 vs. 261.52 min, p = 0.011), estimated blood loss (90 vs. 123.81 ml, p = 0.037), and hospital stay (1.12 vs. 1.64 days, p < 0.001) compared with patients who did not receive it. However, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the number of retrieved pelvic LNs. Obesity had no significant impact on the rates of intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and 3-year recurrence incidence. In conclusion, robotic surgery was technically feasible and safe. The use of ICG was statistically linked to favorable outcomes, in terms of decreased operative time, EBL, and hospital stay. Obesity did not impact the perioperative surgical outcomes.

Pediatric Burns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Epidemiology, Gender Distribution, Risk Factors, Management, and Outcomes in Emergency Departments.

Pediatric burns pose a significant public health concern, ranking as the fifth most common nonfatal injury globally. This review consolidates data on the epidemiology, outcomes, and management of pediatric burns presenting to emergency departments. A systematic review was conducted across multiple databases, yielding 22 articles from 1992 to 2020. Utilizing the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) instrument, non-comparative studies scored from 2 to 11 with an average of 6.87, while comparative studies ranged from 12 to 16, averaging 13.67. The review included a total of 828,538 pediatric patients who were evaluated in the systematic review. Predominantly male victims ranged from 53% to 83%. The youngest victims were aged between 0 to 4 years. Burn etiology was largely attributed to scalds. A majority suffered from second-degree burns, with some studies reporting up to 89%. Limited data on total body surface area (TBSA) were documented, with only 2.5% requiring hospitalization. Common interventions included immediate resuscitation and skin grafting. Essential areas for future research are identified, including household risks, pre-treatment decisions, and the significant role of family dynamics in burn injury recovery. Pediatric burns remain a considerable concern, particularly among males and in household environments. The data underline the imperative for prevention strategies and optimized emergency care to positively influence outcomes for burn victims. Future research areas range from evaluating pre-treatment decisions to assessing community awareness regarding burn first aid.

Can a Machine Ace the Test? Assessing GPT-4.0's Precision in Plastic Surgery Board Examinations.

Background: As artificial intelligence makes rapid inroads across various fields, its value in medical education is becoming increasingly evident. This study evaluates the performance of the GPT-4.0 large language model in responding to plastic surgery board examination questions and explores its potential as a learning tool. Methods: We used a selection of 50 questions from 19 different chapters of a widely-used plastic surgery reference. Responses generated by the GPT-4.0 model were assessed based on four parameters: accuracy, clarity, completeness, and conciseness. Correlation analyses were conducted to ascertain the relationship between these parameters and the overall performance of the model. Results: GPT-4.0 showed a strong performance with high mean scores for accuracy (2.88), clarity (3.00), completeness (2.88), and conciseness (2.92) on a three-point scale. Completeness of the model's responses was significantly correlated with accuracy (P < 0.0001), whereas no significant correlation was found between accuracy and clarity or conciseness. Performance variability across different chapters indicates potential limitations of the model in dealing with certain complex topics in plastic surgery. Conclusions: The GPT-4.0 model exhibits considerable potential as an auxiliary tool for preparation for plastic surgery board examinations. Despite a few identified limitations, the generally high scores on key parameters suggest the model's ability to provide responses that are accurate, clear, complete, and concise. Future research should focus on enhancing the performance of artificial intelligence models in complex medical topics, further improving their applicability in medical education.