Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: a systematic review of perioperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) and to compare the perioperative outcomes of R-RPLND with open RPLND (O-RPLND), as RPLND forms an integral part of the management of testis cancer and R-RPLND is a minimally invasive treatment option for this disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed® , Scopus® , Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science™ databases were searched for studies reporting perioperative outcomes of primary and post-chemotherapy R-RPLND and studies comparing R-RPLND with O-RPLND. RESULTS: The search yielded 42 articles describing R-RPLND, including five comparative studies. The systematic review included 4222 patients (single-arm studies, n = 459; comparative studies, n = 3763). Of 459 patients in the single-arm studies, 271 underwent primary R-RPLND and 188 underwent post-chemotherapy R-RPLND. For primary R-RPLND, the operative time ranged from 175 to 540 min and the major complication rate was 4.1%. For post-chemotherapy R-RPLND, the operative time ranged from 134 to 550 min and the major complication rate was 8.5%. The conversion rate to open surgery was 2.2% in primary R-RPLND and 9.0% in post-chemotherapy R-RPLND. In comparison with O-RPLND, R-RPLND was associated with a lower transfusion rate (14.5% vs 0.9%, P < 0.001) and a lower complication rate (18.5% vs 7.8%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted RPLND has acceptable perioperative outcomes in both the primary and post-chemotherapy settings but a notable rate of conversion to open surgery in the post-chemotherapy setting. Compared with O-RPLND, R-RPLND is associated with a lower transfusion rate and fewer overall complications. Given the potential impact of selection bias, the optimal patient selection criteria for R-RPLND remain to be elucidated.

A Decade of Robotic-Assisted Radical Nephrectomy with Inferior Vena Cava Thrombectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Open radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava thrombectomy (O-CT) is standard management for renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena cava thrombus. First reported a decade ago, robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy with inferior vena cava thrombectomy (R-CT) is a minimally invasive option for this disease. We aimed to perform a systematic review to assess the safety and feasibility of R-CT in terms of perioperative outcomes and compare the outcomes between R-CT and O-CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed®, Scopus®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of ScienceTM databases were searched using the free-text and MeSH terms "renal cell carcinoma," "inferior vena cava," "thrombosis" or "thrombus," "robot" and "thrombectomy." Studies reporting perioperative outcomes of R-CT and studies comparing R-CT with O-CT were included. The review was done in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RESULTS: The search retrieved 28 articles describing R-CT, including 7 comparative studies. This systematic review included 1,375 patients, out of which 329 patients were in single-arm studies and 1,046 patients were in comparative studies. Of the 329 patients who underwent R-CT, 14.7% were level I, 60.9% level II, 20.4% level III and 2.5% level IV thrombus. Operative time ranged from 150 to 530 minutes; blood transfusion was administered in 38.2% (126). The overall complication rate was 30.3% (99). R-CT, in comparison to O-CT, was associated with a lower blood transfusion rate (18.4% vs 64.3%, p=0.002) and a lower complication rate (14.5% vs 36.7%, p=0.005). Major complication and 30-day mortality rates were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: R-CT has acceptable perioperative outcomes in carefully selected patients. Compared with O-CT, R-CT is associated with a lower blood transfusion rate and fewer overall complications. In experienced hands with carefully selected patients, R-CT is feasible and safe, with acceptable outcomes; however, selection bias limits definitive inference of these results, and optimal patient selection criteria remain to be described.

Predatory Publishing and the Academic Librarian: Developing Tools to Make Decisions.

Predatory publishing tactics are well-documented in the literature; however, the way in which academic librarians handle questions about these deceptive practices is not. A thorough review of the literature revealed a need for true decision-making tools that were easy to use and share. Based on this evidence, the authors developed Scholarly Tools Opposing Predatory Practices (STOPP) to empower librarians to make informed decisions by providing the appropriate context and tools for appraising journals, websites, conferences, and thesis converters. While geared toward academic medical librarians, these tools are built to evolve and adapt across disciplines as predatory practices evolve and adapt.

Making It Work for Everyone: An Evolving Reference Service.

At an academic health science center, librarians identified problems, weaknesses, and strengths in reference services. The on-call reference schedule was discontinued and a question flowchart was developed for circulation staff. Only research questions were referred to librarians, who would respond if available. Circulation staff perceived the unscheduled, voluntary model was not working well for the patrons or the staff. After two months, the schedule was reinstated with a hybrid version of the previous on-call format. In the process of changing the service model, the library staff also underwent a cultural change.

Focused library instruction for occupational therapy, physical therapy, and respiratory care students and faculty: library instruction in allied health.

The integration of librarians into allied health programs presents many exciting opportunities for collaboration. This column will describe how a library instruction program is integrated into the occupational therapy, respiratory care, and physical therapy curricula at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. The allied health faculty have welcomed and recognized the librarians' expertise in teaching evidence-based practice and library research skills.

Methodology for task-shifting evidence-based psychological treatments to non-licenced/lay health workers: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: 'Task-shifting' or 'task-sharing' is an effective strategy for delivering behavioural healthcare in lower resource communities. However, little is known regarding the actual steps (methods) in carrying out a task-shifting project. This paper presents a protocol for a systematic review that will identify steps in adapting an evidence-based psychological treatment for delivery by lay/non-licenced personnel. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review of peer-reviewed, published studies involving a non-licenced, non-specialist (eg, community health worker, promotor/a, peer and lay person) delivering an evidence-based psychological treatment for adults will be conducted. Study design of selected articles must include a statistical comparison (eg, randomised controlled trials, quasiexperimental trials, pre-post designs and pragmatic trials). Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, APA PsycInfo and Google Scholar will be searched from 2000 to 2020. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool, and publication bias will be evaluated with the Cochrane GRADE approach. A narrative synthesis will be conducted for all included studies, and a summary table following Proctor's framework for operationalising implementation strategies will be included. This protocol was developed following the 2015 guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will analyse data from published studies only; thus, it will not require institutional board review. Findings will be presented at conferences, to the broader community via the Community Health Worker Translational Advisory Board and social media, and the final systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.