No abstract

Background The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery (LCoGS) published its seminal report in 2015, carving a niche for global surgery academia. Six years after the LCoGS, a scoping review was conducted to see how the term 'global surgery' is characterized by the literature and how it relates to LCoGS and its domains. Methods PubMed was searched for publications between January 2015 and February 2021 that used the term ‘global surgery’ in the title, abstract, or key words or cited the LCoGS. Variables extracted included LCoGS domains, authorship metrics, geographic scope, and clinical specialty. Results The search captured 938 articles that qualified for data extraction. Nearly 80% of first and last authors had high-income country affiliations. Africa was the most frequently investigated region, though many countries within the region were under-represented. The World Journal of Surgery was the most frequent journal, publishing 13.9% of all articles. General surgery, pediatric surgery, and neurosurgery were the most represented specialties. Of the LCoGS domains, healthcare delivery and management were the most studied, while economics and financing were the least studied. Conclusion A lack of consensus on the definition of global surgery remains. Additional research is needed in economics and financing, while obstetrics and trauma are under-represented in literature using the term ‘global surgery’. Efforts in academic global surgery must give a voice to those carrying the global surgery agenda forward on the frontlines. Focusing on research capacity-building and encouraging contribution by local partners will lead to a stronger, more cohesive global surgery community.

Background The impact of extent of resection (EOR), residual tumor volume (RTV), and gross-total resection (GTR) in glioblastoma subgroups is currently unknown. This study aimed to analyze their impact in patient subgroups in relation to neurological and functional outcomes. Methods Patients with tumor resection for eloquent glioblastoma between 2010 and 2020 at four tertiary centers were recruited from a cohort of 3919 patients. Results One thousand and forty-seven (1047) patients were included. Higher EOR and lower RTV were significantly associated with improved OS and PFS across all subgroups, but RTV was a stronger prognostic factor. GTR based on RTV improved median OS in the overall cohort (19.0 months, p<0.0001), and in the subgroups with IDH wildtype tumors (18.5 months, p=0.00055), MGMT methylated tumors (35.0 months, p<0.0001), aged <70 (20.0 months, p<0.0001), NIHSS 0-1 (19.0 months, p=0.0038), KPS 90-100 (19.5 months, p=0.0012), and KPS ≤ 80 (17.0 months, p=0.036). GTR was significantly associated with improved OS in the overall cohort (HR 0.58, p=0.0070) and improved PFS in the NIHSS 0-1 subgroup (HR 0.47, p=0.012). GTR combined with preservation of neurological function (OFO 1 grade) yielded the longest survival times (median OS 22.0 months, p <0.0001), which was significantly more frequently achieved in the awake mapping group (50.0%) than in the asleep group (21.8%) (p<0.0001). Conclusions Maximum resection was especially beneficial in the subgroups aged <70, NIHSS 0-1, and KPS 90-100 without increasing the risk of postoperative NIHSS or KPS worsening. These findings may assist surgical decision making in individual glioblastoma patients.

No abstract

No abstract

There is a fundamental need to establish the most ethical and effective way of tracking disease in the postpandemic era. The ubiquity of mobile phones is generating large amounts of passive data (collected without active user participation) that can be used as a tool for tracking disease. Although discussions of pragmatism or economic issues tend to guide public health decisions, ethical issues are the foremost public concern. Thus, officials must look to history and current moral frameworks to avoid past mistakes and ethical pitfalls. Past pandemics demonstrate that the aftermath is the most effective time to make health policy decisions. However, an ethical discussion of passive data use for digital public health surveillance has yet to be attempted, and little has been done to determine the best method to do so. Therefore, we aim to highlight four potential areas of ethical opportunity and challenge: (1) informed consent, (2) privacy, (3) equity, and (4) ownership.

ObjectivesCOVID-19 presents a risk for delays to stroke treatment. We examined how COVID-19 affected stroke response times.MethodsA literature search was conducted to identify articles covering stroke during COVID-19 that included time metrics data pre- and post-pandemic. For each outcome, pooled relative change from baseline and 95% CI were calculated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was explored through subgroup analyses comparing comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs) to non-CSCs.Results38 included studies reported on 6109 patients during COVID-19 and 14 637 patients during the pre-COVID period. Pooled increases of 20.9% (95% CI 5.8% to 36.1%) in last-known-well (LKW) to arrival times, 1.2% (−2.9% to 5.3%) in door-to-imaging (DTI), 0.8% (–2.9% to 4.5%) in door-to-needle (DTN), 2.8% (−5.0% to 10.6%) in door-to-groin (DTG), and 19.7% (11.1% to 28.2%) in door-to-reperfusion (DTR) times were observed during COVID-19. At CSCs, LKW increased by 24.0% (−0.3% to 48.2%), DTI increased by 1.6% (−3.0% to 6.1%), DTN increased by 3.6% (1.2% to 6.0%), DTG increased by 4.6% (−5.9% to 15.1%), and DTR increased by 21.2% (12.3% to 30.1%). At non-CSCs, LKW increased by 12.4% (−1.0% to 25.7%), DTI increased by 0.2% (−2.0% to 2.4%), DTN decreased by −4.6% (−11.9% to 2.7%), DTG decreased by −0.6% (−8.3% to 7.1%), and DTR increased by 0.5% (−31.0% to 32.0%). The increases during COVID-19 in LKW (p=0.01) and DTR (p=0.00) were statistically significant, as was the difference in DTN delays between CSCs and non-CSCs (p=0.04).ConclusionsFactors during COVID-19 resulted in significantly delayed LKW and DTR, and mild delays in DTI, DTN, and DTG. CSCs experience more pronounced delays than non-CSCs.

No abstract