Evaluation of the Impact of ChatGPT on the Selection of Surgical Technique in Bariatric Surgery.

PURPOSE: With the growing interest in artificial intelligence (AI) applications in medicine, this study explores ChatGPT's potential to influence surgical technique selection in metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), contrasting AI recommendations with established clinical guidelines and expert consensus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conducting a single-center retrospective analysis, the study involved 161 patients who underwent MBS between January 2022 and December 2023. ChatGPT4 was used to analyze patient data, including demographics, pathological history, and BMI, to recommend the most suitable surgical technique. These AI recommendations were then compared with the hospital's algorithm-based decisions. RESULTS: ChatGPT recommended Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in over half of the cases. However, a significant difference was observed between AI suggestions and actual surgical techniques applied, with only a 34.16% match rate. Further analysis revealed any significant correlation between ChatGPT recommendations and the established surgical algorithm. CONCLUSION: Despite ChatGPT's ability to process and analyze large datasets, its recommendations for MBS techniques do not align closely with those determined by expert surgical teams using a high success rate algorithm. Consequently, the study concludes that ChatGPT4 should not replace expert consultation in selecting MBS techniques.

Determining the optimal interval between neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and surgery in rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: In locally advanced rectal cancer, the optimal interval between completion of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RT-ChT) and surgical resection remains unclear due to contradictory data on the benefits of extending this interval. Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to determine the impact of this interval on outcomes in patients treated for rectal cancer at our center. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 382 consecutive patients treated for stage II/III rectal cancer between October 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017. We evaluated four different cut-off points (56, 63, 70, and 77 days) to determine which had the greatest impact on treatment outcomes. RESULTS: The median time between completion of RT-ChT and surgery was 67.2 days (range, 28-294). Intervals > 8 weeks (56 days) were associated with worse therapeutic outcomes. Specifically, an interval ≥ 77 days was associated with a significant decrease in overall survival (OS; 84% vs. 70%; p = 0.004), which is why we selected this interval for the comparative analysis. Several outcome variables were significantly better in the short interval (< 77 days) group, including margin involvement (5.2% vs. 13.9%; p = 0.01), sphincter preservation (78% vs. 59.3%; p = 0.003), and distant dissemination (22.6% vs. 32.5%; p = 0.04). No significant between-group differences were found in complete/nearly complete response rates (19.2% vs. 24.4%; p = 0.3). Time to surgery was statistically significant on both the univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that surgery should not be delayed more than 8 weeks (56 days) after neoadjuvant treatment. An interval > 8 weeks should only be considered in patients who demonstrate a good response to neoadjuvant RT-ChT.

Preoperative Progressive Pneumoperitoneum in the Treatment of Hernias With Loss of Domain. Our Experience in 50 Cases.

Introduction: Surgical planning for repair of giant hernias with loss of domain needs to consider patient comorbidities, potential risks and possible postoperative complications. Some postoperative complications are related to the increase in intra-abdominal pressure caused by the reintroduction of abdominal contents into the peritoneal space. Preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum (PPP) increases the capacity of abdominal cavity prior to hernia repair and allows for better physiological postoperative adaptation. The aim of this study is to analyze perioperative and intraoperative characteristics as well as outcomes of a cohort of patients treated with PPP prior to giant hernia repair at a single, high volume center. Methods: Prospective, descriptive, observational single-center study including 50 patients undergoing PPP prior to hernia with loss of domain repair between January 2005 and June 2022. We analysed epidemiological, surgical and safety variables. Results: Fifty patients were included: 43 incisional hernias, 6 inguinal hernias and 1 umbilical hernia. Mean age was 66 years (36-85). Median insufflation time was 12 days (4-20) and median insufflated volume of ambient air was 10,036 cc. There were complications during PPP in nine patients: 2 decompensation of chronic respiratory disease and 7 subcutaneous emphysema. PPP was prematurely suspended in patients with respiratory decompensation. All patients with incisional and umbilical hernias underwent open repair with mesh placement. Preperitoneal repair was performed in inguinal hernias. Three cases of hernia recurrence were reported during the follow up. Conclusion: PPP is a safe and effective tool in the preoperative management of patients with giant hernias. It helps to achieve the decrease or absence of abdominal wall tension and can favour the results of complex eventroplasty techniques.

Ways to perform an endoscopic tattoo. Prospective and randomized study in patients with colorectal neoplasm.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: intraoperative identification of colonic lesions previously detected via colonoscopy may be difficult. Endoscopic tattooing facilitates identification, but there is no evidence regarding which is the best tattoo technique. The goal of the study was to describe the efficacy and safety of endoscopic tattooing and to detect technical and clinical factors associated with its efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: a prospective and randomized study was performed. All tattoo candidate patients were included prior to surgery and randomized into four groups; tattoo at two or three injection points and with a volume of 1 or 1.5 ml of labeling. Multiple variables were registered. RESULTS: one hundred and ninety-five patients were included with an endoscopic tattoo and who subsequently underwent a surgical intervention, the mean age was 70.1 years and 67.2 % were male. The laparoscopic approach was applied in 57.9 % of cases. The intraoperative visibility of the endoscopic tattoo was 89.7 % and 30 % of rectal lesions were not visible. Excluding the rectum, the marking was visible intraoperatively in 92 % of patients, without significant differences according to the surgical approach, the type of marking or any of the variables collected. The tattoo was safe in 92.3 % of the cases. The adverse effect rate was 7.7 % and none of the complications were clinically significant. There were no significant differences between any variables collected in relation to adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: endoscopic colon tattoo is safe and effective regardless of the technique used. We recommend the technique of two injection points and 1 ml of marking volume for its simplicity, efficiency and safety.

Preoperative management of colorectal cancer-induced iron deficiency anemia in clinical practice: data from a large observational cohort.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anemia prevalence among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients is high and may adversely influence postoperative outcome. This study assesses the efficacy of a preoperative anemia managing protocol in CRC. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive CRC resections at two Spanish centers (January 2012 to December 2013). Preoperative anemia was defined as a hemoglobin (Hb) level of less than 13 g/dL and treated with intravenous iron (IVI) or standard care (oral iron or no iron). Red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) requirements was the primary outcome variable. Postoperative infection rate and length of hospital stay (LOS) were secondary outcome variables. Patients were managed with a restrictive transfusion trigger (Hb < 8 g/dL). Infection was diagnosed clinically and confirmed by laboratory, microbiologic, and/or radiologic evidence. RESULTS: Overall, 322 of 571 patients (56%) presented with anemia: 232 received IVI and 90 standard care. There were differences in RBCT rate between no anemia and anemia (2% vs. 16%; p < 0.01), but not in postoperative infections (19% vs. 22%; p = NS) or LOS. Compared to those on standard care, anemic patients on IVI presented with lower Hb (10.8 g/dL vs. 12.0 g/dL; p < 0.001) at baseline, but similar Hb on day of surgery and Postoperative Day 30. There were no between-group differences in RBCT rates (16% vs. 17%; p = NS), but infection rates were lower among IVI-treated patients (18% vs. 29%; p < 0.05). No relevant IVI-related side effects were recorded. CONCLUSION: Compared to standard care, IVI was more effective in treating preoperative anemia in CRC patients and appeared to reduce infection rate, although it did not reduce postoperative RBCT.

Colonoscopic perforation: useful parameters for early diagnosis and conservative treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine useful parameters for the early diagnosis of colonoscopic perforation and to select those who would require surgical treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the demographics, clinical and colonoscopic data, diagnostic-surgical interval, operative findings, complications, and hospital stay of patients who developed postcolonoscopy iatrogenic colonic perforation between January 2002 and December 2008. RESULTS: A retrospective multicentric study of patients diagnosed of colonoscopic perforation was performed. Fifty-four patients were found for final analysis (mean age, 71 years (26-91 years). Thirty-four were diagnostic and 20 were therapeutic colonoscopies. Most patients in whom the perforation was noticed during colonoscopy were treated surgically (p = 0.032) within 24 h (p = 0.004) and had a lesser degree of surgical peritonitis (p = 0.033). Those with deficient bowel preparation had more interventions (p < 0.05), ostomies (p = 0.015), and complications (p = 0.023) as well as major clinical (p < 0.001) and surgical peritonitis (p = 0.031). Patients with nonoperative management had fewer complications (p = 0.011) and lower hospital stay (p < 0.048). Surgical treatment within 24 h resulted in a lesser degree of surgical peritonitis (p < 0.001), fewer intestinal resections (p < 0.001), ostomies (p = 0.002) and complications (p < 0.047), and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend a conservative treatment for patients with the following conditions: good general health, unnoticed perforation during endoscopy, early diagnosis, no signs of diffuse peritonitis, proper colonic preparation, and a different injury mechanism to traction. Patients treated surgically after the first 24 h are likely to have a greater degree of peritonitis and more intestinal resections, ostomies, and complications.