Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining traction in medicine and surgery. AI-based applications can offer tools to examine high-volume data to inform predictive analytics that supports complex decision-making processes. Time-sensitive trauma and emergency contexts are often challenging. The study aims to investigate trauma and emergency surgeons’ knowledge and perception of using AI-based tools in clinical decision-making processes. Methods An online survey grounded on literature regarding AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was advertised to 917 WSES members through the society’s website and Twitter profile. Results 650 surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the survey. Results depict the presence of technology enthusiasts and skeptics and surgeons' preference toward more classical decision-making aids like clinical guidelines, traditional training, and the support of their multidisciplinary colleagues. A lack of knowledge about several AI-related aspects emerges and is associated with mistrust. Discussion The trauma and emergency surgical community is divided into those who firmly believe in the potential of AI and those who do not understand or trust AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids. Academic societies and surgical training programs should promote a foundational, working knowledge of clinical AI.
Background: The most frequent primary ocular malignancy in the western world is the uveal melanoma. While it mainly affects Caucasians, it is extremely uncommon among non-Caucasians. Continuous improvement in therapies for local treatment has allowed sparing of the eye, although this approach apparently does not improve survival. The present review aimed to explain different radiotherapy (RT) methods and compare the pros and cons of each method, along with the main complications that may be encountered in the treatment of uveal melanoma. Methods: Relevant papers published in English between January 2010 and January 2021 were retrieved, reviewed, and screened. Four databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and GeneCards, were searched for this purpose. Results: Forty-one relevant articles were identified. Based on the selected papers, we highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of the different RT methods that have allowed sparing of the eye, even though they have not, as yet, improved survival. We listed a detailed comparison between therapies that allow an educated choice among the different available RT methods. Conclusions: The choice of uveal melanoma management is determined by the location of the tumor and volume of the extraocular extent. At present, there is no gold standard for the management of all ocular melanomas, and each case should be approached individually. Therefore, classification is a valuable prognostic tool. Many cases in cT3-4 classification categories are treated by primary enucleation and conservative treatment follow-up, while in cT2 and most cT1 classifications (i.e., 3.1–6.0-mm tumor thickness), several forms of RT are used. Keywords: melanoma of the uvea, choroidal melanoma, radiation therapy, brachytherapy, radioisotope brachytherapy, proton beam therapy, classification
Metabolic syndrome (MS) is defined as the constellation of obesity, insulin resistance, high serum triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high blood pressure. It increasingly affects more and more people and progressively evolves into a serious issue with widespread healthcare, cost, and quality of life associated consequences. MS is associated with increased morbidity and mortality due to cardiovascular or chronic liver disease. Conservative treatment, which includes diet, exercise, and antidiabetic agents, is the mainstay of treatment, but depends on patient compliance to medical treatment and adherence to lifestyle modification recommendations. Bariatric surgery has recently emerged as an appropriate alternative treatment with promising long-term results. Sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass constitute the most commonly performed procedures and have been proven both cost-effective and safe with low complication rates. Liver transplantation is the only definitive treatment for end-stage liver disease and its utilization in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis has increased more than fivefold over the past 15 years. In this review, we summarize current state of evidence on the surgical treatment of MS.
Background Shared decision-making (SDM) between clinicians and patients is one of the pillars of the modern patient-centric philosophy of care. This study aims to explore SDM in the discipline of trauma and emergency surgery, investigating its interpretation as well as the barriers and facilitators for its implementation among surgeons. Methods Grounding on the literature on the topics of the understanding, barriers, and facilitators of SDM in trauma and emergency surgery, a survey was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was sent to all 917 WSES members, advertised through the society’s website, and shared on the society’s Twitter profile. Results A total of 650 trauma and emergency surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the initiative. Less than half of the surgeons understood SDM, and 30% still saw the value in exclusively engaging multidisciplinary provider teams without involving the patient. Several barriers to effectively partnering with the patient in the decision-making process were identified, such as the lack of time and the need to concentrate on making medical teams work smoothly. Discussion Our investigation underlines how only a minority of trauma and emergency surgeons understand SDM, and perhaps, the value of SDM is not fully accepted in trauma and emergency situations. The inclusion of SDM practices in clinical guidelines may represent the most feasible and advocated solutions.
Background: Abdominal operations may lead to post-operative bowel dysfunction, while administration of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics may limit its manifestation. Τhe study aimed to assess the efficacy of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in patients who undergone abdominal operation, in terms of bowel function post-operatively. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central), Embase, US Registry of clinical trials, and sources of grey literature were searched. The relative effect sizes were estimated, and we obtained the relative ranking of the interventions using cumulative ranking curves. Results: In total, 30 studies were included in the analysis. For the outcome of post-operative ileus, probiotics was superior to placebo/no intervention (relative risk, RR: 0.38; 95%CI: 0.14–0.98) with the highest SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking) value (92.1%). For time to first flatus, probiotics (MD: −0.47; 95%CI: −0.78 to −0.17) and synbiotics (MD: −0.53; 95%CI: −0.96 to −0.09) were superior to placebo/no intervention. For time to first defecation and for post-operative abdominal distension probiotics were superior to placebo/no intervention. For post-operative hospitalization days, synbiotics were superior to placebo/no intervention (MD: −3.07; 95%CI: −4.80 to −1.34). Conclusions: Administration of probiotics in patients who had undergone abdominal surgery reduced the prevalence of post-operative ileus, time to first flatus, time to first defecation, and prevalence of post-operative abdominal distension. Synbiotics reduce time to first flatus and post-operative hospitalization days.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.