RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Large Language Models (LLMs) provide clinical guidance with inconsistent accuracy due to limitations with their training dataset. LLMs are "teachable" through customization. We compared the ability of the generic ChatGPT-4 model and a customized version of ChatGPT-4 to provide recommendations for the surgical management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) to both surgeons and patients. METHODS: Sixty patient cases were developed using eligibility criteria from the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) & United European Gastroenterology (UEG)-European Association of Endoscopic. Surgery (EAES) guidelines for the surgical management of GERD. Standardized prompts were engineered for physicians as the end-user, with separate layperson prompts for patients. A customized GPT was developed to generate recommendations based on guidelines, called the GERD Tool for Surgery (GTS). Both the GTS and generic ChatGPT-4 were queried July 21st, 2024. Model performance was evaluated by comparing responses to SAGES & UEG-EAES guideline recommendations. Outcome data was presented using descriptive statistics including counts and percentages. RESULTS: The GTS provided accurate recommendations for the surgical management of GERD for 60/60 (100.0%) surgeon inquiries and 40/40 (100.0%) patient inquiries based on guideline recommendations. The Generic ChatGPT-4 model generated accurate guidance for 40/60 (66.7%) surgeon inquiries and 19/40 (47.5%) patient inquiries. The GTS produced recommendations based on the 2021 SAGES & UEG-EAES guidelines on the surgical management of GERD, while the generic ChatGPT-4 model generated guidance without citing evidence to support its recommendations. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT-4 can be customized to overcome limitations with its training dataset to provide recommendations for the surgical management of GERD with reliable accuracy and consistency. The training of LLM models can be used to help integrate this efficient technology into the creation of robust and accurate information for both surgeons and patients. Prospective data is needed to assess its effectiveness in a pragmatic clinical environment.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Hiatal hernia (HH) is a common condition. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of HH. METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted for four key questions regarding the treatment of HH in adults: surgical treatment of asymptomatic HH versus surveillance; use of mesh versus no mesh; performing a fundoplication versus no fundoplication; and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) versus redo fundoplication for recurrent HH. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology by subject experts. When the evidence was insufficient to base recommendations on, expert opinion was utilized instead. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: The panel provided one conditional recommendation and two expert opinions for adults with HH. The panel suggested routinely performing a fundoplication in the repair of HH, though this was based on low certainty evidence. There was insufficient evidence to make evidence-based recommendations regarding surgical repair of asymptomatic HH or conversion to RYGB in recurrent HH, and therefore, only expert opinions were offered. The panel suggested that select asymptomatic patients may be offered surgical repair, with criteria outlined. Similarly, it suggested that conversion to RYGB for management of recurrent HH may be appropriate in certain patients and again described criteria. The evidence for the routine use of mesh in HH repair was equivocal and the panel deferred making a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of HH and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and consideration of patient values to optimize outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs will improve the evidence base and may allow for stronger recommendations in future evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of HH.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is an extremely common disease with a variety of medical and surgical treatment approaches. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians and patients in decisions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted from 2010 to 2022 to answer 8 key questions relating to the diagnosis of appendicitis, operative or nonoperative management, and specific technical and post-operative issues for appendectomy. The results of this systematic review were then presented to a panel of adult and pediatric surgeons. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. RESULTS: Conditional recommendations were made in favor of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis being managed operatively, either delayed (>12h) or immediate operation (<12h), either suction and lavage or suction alone, no routine drain placement, treatment with short-term antibiotics postoperatively for complicated appendicitis, and complicated appendicitis previously treated nonoperatively undergoing interval appendectomy. A conditional recommendation signals that the benefits of adhering to a recommendation probably outweigh the harms although it does also indicate uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations should provide guidance with regard to current controversies in appendicitis. The panel also highlighted future research opportunities where the evidence base can be strengthened.
Asunto(s)
Apendicectomía , Apendicitis , Apendicitis/diagnóstico , Apendicitis/terapia , Apendicitis/cirugía , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Medicina Basada en la EvidenciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: When pregnant patients present with nonobstetric pathology, the physicians caring for them may be uncertain about the optimal management strategy. The aim of this guideline is to develop evidence-based recommendations for pregnant patients presenting with common surgical pathologies including appendicitis, biliary disease, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Guidelines Committee convened a working group to address these issues. The group generated five key questions and completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. An expert panel then met to form evidence-based recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Expert opinion was utilized when the available evidence was deemed insufficient. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed on ten recommendations addressing the management of appendicitis, biliary disease, and IBD during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Conditional recommendations were made in favor of appendectomy over nonoperative treatment of appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy over nonoperative treatment of biliary disease and acute cholecystitis specifically. Based on expert opinion, the panel also suggested either operative or nonoperative treatment of biliary diseases other than acute cholecystitis in the third trimester, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography rather than common bile duct exploration for symptomatic choledocholithiasis, applying the same criteria for emergent surgical intervention in pregnant and non-pregnant IBD patients, utilizing an open rather than minimally invasive approach for pregnant patients requiring emergent surgical treatment of IBD, and managing pregnant patients with active IBD flares in a multidisciplinary fashion at centers with IBD expertise.
Asunto(s)
Apendicectomía , Apendicitis , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino , Laparoscopía , Complicaciones del Embarazo , Humanos , Embarazo , Femenino , Complicaciones del Embarazo/cirugía , Complicaciones del Embarazo/terapia , Laparoscopía/métodos , Apendicitis/cirugía , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino/cirugía , Apendicectomía/métodos , Enfermedades de las Vías Biliares/cirugíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The surgical management of hiatal hernia remains controversial. We aimed to compare outcomes of mesh versus no mesh and fundoplication versus no fundoplication in symptomatic patients; surgery versus observation in asymptomatic patients; and redo hernia repair versus conversion to Roux-en-Y reconstruction in recurrent hiatal hernia. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases between 2000 and 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and case series (asymptomatic and recurrent hernias). Screening was performed by two trained independent reviewers. Pooled analyses were performed on comparative data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively. RESULTS: We included 45 studies from 5152 retrieved records. Only six RCTs had low risk of bias. Mesh was associated with a lower recurrence risk (RR = 0.50, 95%CI 0.28, 0.88; I2 = 57%) in observational studies but not RCTs (RR = 0.98, 95%CI 0.47, 2.02; I2 = 34%), and higher total early dysphagia based on five observational studies (RR = 1.44, 95%CI 1.10, 1.89; I2 = 40%) but was not statistically significant in RCTs (RR = 3.00, 95%CI 0.64, 14.16). There was no difference in complications, reintervention, heartburn, reflux, or quality of life. There were no appropriate studies comparing surgery to observation in asymptomatic patients. Fundoplication resulted in higher early dysphagia in both observational studies and RCTs ([RR = 2.08, 95%CI 1.16, 3.76] and [RR = 20.58, 95%CI 1.34, 316.69]) but lower reflux in RCTs (RR = 0.31, 95%CI 0.17, 0.56, I2 = 0%). Conversion to Roux-en-Y was associated with a lower reintervention risk after 30 days compared to redo surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for optimal management of symptomatic and recurrent hiatal hernia remains controversial, underpinned by studies with a high risk of bias. Shared decision making between surgeon and patient is essential for optimal outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Fundoplicación , Hernia Hiatal , Herniorrafia , Recurrencia , Mallas Quirúrgicas , Hernia Hiatal/cirugía , Humanos , Fundoplicación/métodos , Herniorrafia/métodos , Enfermedades Asintomáticas , Reoperación/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The SAGES Guidelines Committee creates evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Due to existing health disparities, recommendations made in these guidelines may have different impacts on different populations. The updates to our standard operating procedure described herein will allow us to produce well-designed guidelines that take these disparities into account and potentially reduce health inequities. METHODS: This paper outlines updates to the SAGES Guidelines Committee Standard Operating Procedure in order to incorporate issues of heath equity into our guideline development process with the goal of minimizing downstream health disparities. RESULTS: SAGES has developed an evidence-based, standardized approach to consider issues of health equity throughout the guideline development process to allow physicians to better counsel patients and make research recommendations to better address disparities. CONCLUSION: Societies that promote guidelines within their organization must make an intentional effort to prevent the widening of health disparities as a result of their recommendations. The updates to the Guidelines Committee Standard Operating Procedure will hopefully lead to increased attention to these disparities and provide specific recommendations to reduce them.
Asunto(s)
Equidad en Salud , Humanos , Equidad en Salud/normas , Estados Unidos , Sociedades Médicas , Disparidades en Atención de Salud , Guías de Práctica Clínica como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Large language model (LLM)-linked chatbots may be an efficient source of clinical recommendations for healthcare providers and patients. This study evaluated the performance of LLM-linked chatbots in providing recommendations for the surgical management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Nine patient cases were created based on key questions addressed by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) guidelines for the surgical treatment of GERD. ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Copilot, Google Bard, and Perplexity AI were queried on November 16th, 2023, for recommendations regarding the surgical management of GERD. Accurate chatbot performance was defined as the number of responses aligning with SAGES guideline recommendations. Outcomes were reported with counts and percentages. RESULTS: Surgeons were given accurate recommendations for the surgical management of GERD in an adult patient for 5/7 (71.4%) KQs by ChatGPT-4, 3/7 (42.9%) KQs by Copilot, 6/7 (85.7%) KQs by Google Bard, and 3/7 (42.9%) KQs by Perplexity according to the SAGES guidelines. Patients were given accurate recommendations for 3/5 (60.0%) KQs by ChatGPT-4, 2/5 (40.0%) KQs by Copilot, 4/5 (80.0%) KQs by Google Bard, and 1/5 (20.0%) KQs by Perplexity, respectively. In a pediatric patient, surgeons were given accurate recommendations for 2/3 (66.7%) KQs by ChatGPT-4, 3/3 (100.0%) KQs by Copilot, 3/3 (100.0%) KQs by Google Bard, and 2/3 (66.7%) KQs by Perplexity. Patients were given appropriate guidance for 2/2 (100.0%) KQs by ChatGPT-4, 2/2 (100.0%) KQs by Copilot, 1/2 (50.0%) KQs by Google Bard, and 1/2 (50.0%) KQs by Perplexity. CONCLUSIONS: Gastrointestinal surgeons, gastroenterologists, and patients should recognize both the promise and pitfalls of LLM's when utilized for advice on surgical management of GERD. Additional training of LLM's using evidence-based health information is needed.
Asunto(s)
Inteligencia Artificial , Reflujo Gastroesofágico , Reflujo Gastroesofágico/cirugía , Humanos , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Adulto , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , MasculinoRESUMEN
Since the 1970s, magnets have been progressively harnessed for use in minimally invasive treatment of pediatric surgical disease. In particular, multiple magnetic devices have been developed for treating esophageal atresia, pectus excavatum and scoliosis. These devices, which can be placed via small incisions or under endoscopic or fluoroscopic guidance, provide the added benefit of sparing patients multiple large, invasive procedures, and allowing for gradual correction of congenital anomalies over days to months, depending on the disease. In the following text, we detail the current landscape of magnetic devices used by pediatric surgeons, illustrate their use through clinical cases, and review the available body of literature with respect their outcomes and complications.
Asunto(s)
Atresia Esofágica , Tórax en Embudo , Niño , Humanos , Imanes , Tórax en Embudo/cirugía , Endoscopía/métodos , Atresia Esofágica/cirugía , Fluoroscopía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente InvasivosRESUMEN
Outcomes of pediatric patients who received extracorporeal life support (ECLS) for COVID-19 remain poorly described. The aim of this multi-institutional retrospective observational study was to evaluate these outcomes and assess for prognostic factors associated with in-hospital mortality. Seventy-nine patients at 14 pediatric centers across the United States who received ECLS support for COVID-19 infections between January 2020 and July 2022 were included for analysis. Data were extracted from the electronic medical record. The median age was 14.5 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 2-17 years). Most patients were female (54.4%) and had at least one pre-existing comorbidity (84.8%), such as obesity (44.3%, median body mass index percentile: 97% [IQR: 67.5-99.0%]). Venovenous (VV) ECLS was initiated in 50.6% of patients. Median duration of ECLS was 12 days (IQR: 6.0-22.5 days) with a mean duration from admission to ECLS initiation of 5.2 ± 6.3 days. Survival to hospital discharge was 54.4%. Neurological deficits were reported in 16.3% of survivors. Nonsurvivors were of older age (13.3 ± 6.2 years vs. 9.3 ± 7.7 years, p = 0.012), more likely to receive renal replacement therapy (63.9% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.003), demonstrated longer durations from admission to ECLS initiation (7.0 ± 8.1 days vs. 3.7 ± 3.8 days, p = 0.030), and had higher rates of ECLS-related complications (91.7% vs. 69.8%, p = 0.016) than survivors. Pediatric patients with COVID-19 who received ECLS demonstrated substantial morbidity and further investigation is warranted to optimize management strategies.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Oxigenación por Membrana Extracorpórea , Humanos , Niño , Femenino , Preescolar , Adolescente , Masculino , Oxigenación por Membrana Extracorpórea/efectos adversos , COVID-19/terapia , Estudios Retrospectivos , Hospitalización , Mortalidad HospitalariaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery has been used for both de novo insertion and salvage of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters. Advanced laparoscopic, basic laparoscopic, open, and image-guided techniques have evolved as the most popular techniques. The aim of this guideline was to develop evidence-based guidelines that support surgeons, patients, and other physicians in decisions on minimally invasive peritoneal dialysis access and the salvage of malfunctioning catheters in both adults and children. METHODS: A guidelines committee panel of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons reviewed the literature since the prior guideline was published in 2014 and developed seven key questions in adults and four in children. After a systematic review of the literature, by the panel, evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: After systematic review, data extraction, and evidence to decision meetings, the panel agreed on twelve recommendations for the peri-operative performance of laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis access surgery and management of catheter dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: In the adult population, conditional recommendations were made in favor of: staged hernia repair followed by PD catheter insertion over simultaneous and traditional start over urgent start of PD when medically possible. Furthermore, the panel suggested advanced laparoscopic insertion techniques rather than basic laparoscopic techniques or open insertion. Conditional recommendations were made for either advanced laparoscopic or image-guided percutaneous insertion and for either nonoperative or operative salvage. A recommendation could not be made regarding concomitant clean-contaminated surgery in adults. In the pediatric population, conditional recommendations were made for either traditional or urgent start of PD, concomitant clean or clean-contaminated surgery and PD catheter placement rather than staged, and advanced laparoscopic placement rather than basic or open insertion.
Asunto(s)
Fallo Renal Crónico , Laparoscopía , Diálisis Peritoneal , Adulto , Niño , Humanos , Cateterismo/métodos , Catéteres de Permanencia , Diálisis Peritoneal/métodos , PeritoneoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the liver's two most common malignant neoplasms. Liver-directed therapies such as ablation have become part of multidisciplinary therapies despite a paucity of data. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for HCC or CRLM less than 5 cm in diameter in patients ineligible for other therapies. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted for six key questions (KQ) regarding MWA or RFA for solitary liver tumors in patients deemed poor candidates for first-line therapy. Subject experts used the GRADE methodology to formulate evidence-based recommendations and future research recommendations. RESULTS: The panel addressed six KQs pertaining to MWA vs. RFA outcomes and laparoscopic vs. percutaneous MWA. The available evidence was poor quality and individual studies included both HCC and CRLM. Therefore, the six KQs were condensed into two, recognizing that these were two disparate tumor groups and this grouping was somewhat arbitrary. With this significant limitation, the panel suggested that in appropriately selected patients, either MWA or RFA can be safe and feasible. However, this recommendation must be implemented cautiously when simultaneously considering patients with two disparate tumor biologies. The limited data suggested that laparoscopic MWA of anatomically more difficult tumors has a compensatory higher morbidity profile compared to percutaneous MWA, while achieving similar overall 1-year survival. Thus, either approach can be appropriate depending on patient-specific factors (very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: Given the weak evidence, these guidelines provide modest guidance regarding liver ablative therapies for HCC and CRLM. Liver ablation is just one component of a multimodal approach and its use is currently limited to a highly selected population. The quality of the existing data is very low and therefore limits the strength of the guidelines.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Hepatocelular , Ablación por Catéter , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Ablación por Radiofrecuencia , Humanos , Neoplasias Hepáticas/cirugía , Neoplasias Hepáticas/patología , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/cirugía , Microondas/uso terapéutico , Ablación por Catéter/métodos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Ablación por Radiofrecuencia/métodos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) occur in roughly half of patients with colorectal cancer. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become an increasingly acceptable and utilized technique for resection in these patients, but there is a lack of specific guidelines on the use of MIS hepatectomy in this setting. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the decision between MIS and open techniques for the resection of CRLM. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted for two key questions (KQ) regarding the use of MIS versus open surgery for the resection of isolated liver metastases from colon and rectal cancer. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Additionally, the panel developed recommendations for future research. RESULTS: The panel addressed two KQs, which pertained to staged or simultaneous resection of resectable colon or rectal metastases. The panel made conditional recommendations for the use of MIS hepatectomy for both staged and simultaneous resection when deemed safe, feasible, and oncologically effective by the surgeon based on the individual patient characteristics. These recommendations were based on low and very low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: These evidence-based recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of CRLM and highlight the importance of individual considerations of each case. Pursuing the identified research needs may help further refine the evidence and improve future versions of guidelines for the use of MIS techniques in the treatment of CRLM.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Neoplasias del Recto , Humanos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Neoplasias Hepáticas/cirugía , Neoplasias Hepáticas/secundario , Hepatectomía/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos , Neoplasias del Recto/cirugíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases in North America and globally. The aim of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the most utilized and available endoscopic and surgical treatments for GERD. METHODS: Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical and endoscopic treatments for GERD in adults: preoperative evaluation, endoscopic vs surgical or medical treatment, complete vs partial fundoplication, and treatment for obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 35 kg/m2) and concomitant GERD. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. RESULTS: The consensus provided 13 recommendations. Through the development of these evidence-based recommendations, an algorithm was proposed for aid in the treatment of GERD. Patients with typical symptoms should undergo upper endoscopy, manometry, and pH-testing; additional testing may be required for patients with atypical or extra-esophageal symptoms. Patients with normal or abnormal findings on manometry should consider undergoing partial fundoplication. Magnetic sphincter augmentation or fundoplication are appropriate surgical procedures for adults with GERD. For patients who wish to avoid surgery, the Stretta procedure and transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF 2.0) were found to have better outcomes than proton pump inhibitors alone. Patients with concomitant obesity were recommended to undergo either gastric bypass or fundoplication, although patients with severe comorbid disease or BMI > 50 should undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the additional benefits that follow weight loss. CONCLUSION: Using the recommendations an algorithm was developed by this panel, so that physicians may better counsel their patients with GERD. There are certain patient factors that have been excluded from included studies/trials, and so these recommendations should not replace surgeon-patient decision making. Engaging in the identified research areas may improve future care for GERD patients.
Asunto(s)
Derivación Gástrica , Reflujo Gastroesofágico , Adulto , Humanos , Reflujo Gastroesofágico/cirugía , Fundoplicación/métodos , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal , Obesidad/complicaciones , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The SAGES Guidelines Committee has implemented processes for Quality Assessment of SAGES-endorsed guidelines, with the aim of improving the quality of published guidelines. METHODS: We provide details of the processes developed, using standardized tools for assessing the methodological quality of practice guidelines. As an example, we describe the application of our processes to the recent multi-societal GERD consensus guideline. RESULTS: Assessment of the multi-societal GERD consensus guideline by the iterative processes of SAGES Quality Assurance taskforce improved the quality of the final manuscript in all domains of appraisal. These processes are easily applicable to future guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Such systems will increase the confidence in SAGES recommendations and increase the implementation of SAGES guidelines. By demonstrating the rigor of Quality Assessment, this confidence also extends to a further increase in the assurance of the publications of the Surgical Endoscopy journal.
Asunto(s)
Reflujo Gastroesofágico , Humanos , Consenso , PublicacionesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the two most common malignant neoplasms of the liver. The objective of this study was to assess outcomes of surgical approaches to liver ablation comparing laparoscopic versus percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA), and MWA versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with HCC or CRLM lesions smaller than 5 cm. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted across seven databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, to identify all comparative studies between 1937 and 2021. Two independent reviewers screened for eligibility, extracted data for selected studies, and assessed study bias using the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Random effects meta-analyses were subsequently performed on all available comparative data. RESULTS: From 1066 records screened, 11 studies were deemed relevant to the study and warranted inclusion. Eight of the 11 studies were at high or uncertain risk for bias. Our meta-analyses of two studies revealed that laparoscopic MW ablation had significantly higher complication rates compared to a percutaneous approach (risk ratio = 4.66; 95% confidence interval = [1.23, 17.22]), but otherwise similar incomplete ablation rates, local recurrence, and oncologic outcomes. The remaining nine studies demonstrated similar efficacy of MWA and RFA, as measured by incomplete ablation, complication rates, local/regional recurrence, and oncologic outcomes, for both HCC and CRLM lesions less than 5 cm (p > 0.05 for all outcomes). There was no statistical subgroup interaction in the analysis of tumors < 3 cm. CONCLUSION: The available comparative evidence regarding both laparoscopic versus percutaneous MWA and MWA versus RFA is limited, evident by the few studies that suffer from high/uncertain risk of bias. Additional high-quality randomized trials or statistically matched cohort studies with sufficient granularity of patient variables, institutional experience, and physician specialty/training will be useful in informing clinical decision making for the ablative treatment of HCC or CRLM.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Hepatocelular , Ablación por Catéter , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Ablación por Radiofrecuencia , Humanos , Neoplasias Hepáticas/secundario , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/cirugía , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/patología , Microondas/uso terapéutico , Resultado del Tratamiento , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugíaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Data examining rates of postoperative complications among SARS-CoV-2 positive children are limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive status on postoperative respiratory outcomes for children. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included SARS-CoV-2 positive pediatric patients across 20 hospitals who underwent general anesthesia from March to October 2020. The primary outcome was frequency of postoperative respiratory complications, including: high-flow nasal cannula/non invasive ventilation, reintubation, pneumonia, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO), and 30-day respiratory-related readmissions or emergency department (ED) visits. Univariate analyses were used to evaluate associations between patient and procedure characteristics and stratified analyses by symptoms were performed examining incidence of complications. RESULTS: Of 266 SARS-CoV-2 positive patients, 163 (61.7%) were male, and the median age was 10 years (interquartile range 4-14). The majority of procedures were emergent or urgent (n = 214, 80.5%). The most common procedures were appendectomies (n = 78, 29.3%) and fracture repairs (n = 40,15.0%). 13 patients (4.9%) had preoperative symptoms including cough or dyspnea. 26 patients (9.8%) had postoperative respiratory complications, including 15 requiring high-flow oxygen, 8 with pneumonia, 4 requiring non invasive ventilation, 3 respiratory ED visits, and 2 respiratory readmissions. Respiratory complications were more common among symptomatic patients than asymptomatic patients (30.8% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.01). Higher ASA class and comorbidities were also associated with postoperative respiratory complications. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative respiratory complications are less common in asymptomatic versus symptomatic SARS-COV-2 positive children. Relaxation of COVID-19-related restrictions for time-sensitive, non urgent procedures in selected asymptomatic patients may be reasonably considered. Additionally, further research is needed to evaluate the costs and benefits of routine testing for asymptomatic patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Iii, Respiratory complications.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Masculino , Niño , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Femenino , COVID-19/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2 , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios Retrospectivos , Hospitales , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted timely access to care for children, including patients with appendicitis. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on management of appendicitis and patient outcomes. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was performed including 19 children's hospitals from April 2019-October 2020 of children (age≤18 years) diagnosed with appendicitis. Groups were defined by each hospital's city/state stay-at-home orders (SAHO), designating patients as Pre-COVID (Pre-SAHO) or COVID (Post-SAHO). Demographic, treatment, and outcome data were obtained, and univariate and multivariable analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 6,014 patients, 2,413 (40.1%) presented during the COVID-19 pandemic. More patients were managed non-operatively during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic (147 (6.1%) vs 144 (4.0%), p < 0.001). Despite this change, there was no difference in the proportion of complicated appendicitis between groups (1,247 (34.6%) vs 849 (35.2%), p = 0.12). COVID era non-operative patients received fewer additional procedures, including interventional radiology (IR) drain placements, compared to pre-COVID non-operative patients (29 (19.7%) vs 69 (47.9%), p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, factors associated with increased odds of receiving non-operative management included: increasing duration of symptoms (OR=1.01, 95% CI: 1.01-1.012), African American race (OR=2.4, 95% CI: 1.3-4.6), and testing positive for COVID-19 (OR=10.8, 95% CI: 5.4-21.6). CONCLUSION: Non-operative management of appendicitis increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, fewer COVID era cases required IR procedures. These changes in the management of pediatric appendicitis during the COVID pandemic demonstrates the potential for future utilization of non-operative management.
Asunto(s)
Apendicitis , COVID-19 , Adolescente , Niño , Humanos , Apendicectomía , Apendicitis/epidemiología , Apendicitis/cirugía , COVID-19/epidemiología , Pandemias , Estudios Retrospectivos , Negro o AfroamericanoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: While surgical resection has a demonstrated utility for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), it is unclear whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or an open approach should be used. This review sought to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open hepatectomy for isolated, resectable CRLM when performed separately from (Key Question (KQ) 1) or simultaneously with (KQ2) the resection of the primary tumor. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies published during January 2000-September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened literature for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD). RESULTS: From 2304 publications, 35 studies were included for meta-analysis. For staged resections, three RCTs and 20 observational studies were included. Data from RCTs indicated MIS having similar disease-free survival (DFS) at 1-year (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.70-1.50), overall survival (OS) at 5-years (RR 1.04, 95%CI 0.84-1.28), fewer complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.38-1.00), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -6.6 days, 95%CI -10.2, -3.0). For simultaneous resections, 12 observational studies were included. There was no evidence of a difference between MIS and the open group for DFS-1-year, OS-5-year, complications, R0 resections, blood transfusions, along with lower blood loss (MD -177.35 mL, 95%CI -273.17, -81.53) and shorter LOS (MD -3.0 days, 95%CI -3.82, -2.17). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence regarding the optimal approach for CRLM resection demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes between MIS and open techniques, however MIS hepatectomy had a shorter LOS, lower blood loss and complication rate, for both staged and simultaneous resections.