The results reported here may aid clinicians and researchers to better understand the worldwide contribution of anesthesiology research activities over 2 decades.

Background: To compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of indocyanine green (ICG) administration in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and report the differences in the results between patients with benign and malignant renal tumors. Methods: From 2017 to 2020, 132 patients underwent RAPN at our institution, including 21 patients with ICG administration. Clinical data obtained from our institution’s RAPN database were retrospectively reviewed. Intraoperative, postoperative, pathological, and functional outcomes of RAPN were assessed. Results: The pathological results indicated that among the 127 patients, 38 and 89 had received diagnoses of benign and malignant tumors, respectively. A longer operative time (311 vs. 271 min; p = 0.006) but superior preservation of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 3-month follow-up (90% vs. 85%; p = 0.031) were observed in the ICG-RAPN group. Less estimated blood loss, shorter warm ischemia time, and superior preservation of eGFR at postoperative day 1 and 6-month follow-up were also noted, despite no significant differences. Among the patients with malignant tumors, less estimated blood loss (30 vs. 100 mL; p < 0.001) was reported in the ICG-RAPN subgroup. Conclusions: Patients with ICG-RAPN exhibited superior short-term renal function outcomes compared with the standard RAPN group. Of the patients with malignant tumors, ICG-RAPN was associated with less blood loss than standard RAPN without a more positive margin rate. Further studies with larger cohorts and prospective designs are necessary to verify the intraoperative and functional advantages of the green dye.

Background Lymph node invasion is associated with poor outcome in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients and Methods Patients with RCC within a single center from 2001 to 2018 were retrospectively obtained from the Chang Gung Research Database. Patient gender, physical status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, tumor side, histology, age at diagnosis, and body mass index (BMI) were compared. The overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of each group were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Log-rank tests were used to compare between the subgroups. Results and Conclusions A total of 335 patients were enrolled, of whom 76 had pT3N0M0, 29 had pT1–3N1M0, 104 had T1–4N0M1, and 126 had T1–4N1M1 disease. Significant OS difference was noted between pT3N0M0 and pT1–3N1M0 groups with 12.08 years [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.33–15.84] versus 2.58 years (95% CI, 1.32–3.85), respectively (P < 0.005). No significant difference was observed in OS between pT1–3N1M0 and T1–4N0M1 groups with 2.58 years (95% CI, 1.32–3.85) versus 2.50 years (95% CI, 1.85–3.15, P = 0.72). The OS of N1M1 group was worse than that of N0M1 group with 1.00 year (95% CI, 0.74–1.26) versus 2.50 years (95% CI, 1.85–3.15, P < 0.05). Similar results were also observed in CSS. In summary, we claim that RCC with lymph node (LN) invasion should be reclassified as stage IV disease in terms of survival outcome.

Background: Publication activity in the field of anesthesiology informs decisions that enhance academic advancement. Most previous bibliometric studies on anesthesiology examined data limited to journals focused on anesthesiology rather than data answerable to authors in anesthesia departments. This study comprehensively explored publication trends in the field of anesthesiology and their impact. We hypothesized that anesthesiology's bibliometric scene would differ based on whether articles in the same study period were published in anesthesiology-focused journals or were produced by authors in anesthesia departments but published in non-specialty journals.Methods: This cross-sectional study used bibliometric data from the Science Citation Index Expanded database between 1999 and 2018. Two datasets were assembled. The first dataset was a subject-dataset (articles published in 31 journals in the anesthesiology category of InCites Journal Citation Reports in 2018); the second dataset was the department-dataset (articles published in the Science Citation Index Expanded by authors in anesthesia departments). We captured the bibliographical record of each article in both datasets and noted each article's Institute for Scientific Information code, publication year, title, abstract, author addresses, subject category, and references for further study.Results: A total of 69,593 articles were published—cited 1,497,932 times—in the subject-dataset; a total of 167,501 articles were published—cited 3,731,540 times—in the department-dataset. The results demonstrate differences between the two datasets. First, the number of articles was stagnant, with little growth (average annual growth rate = 0.31%) in the subject-dataset; whereas there was stable growth (average annual growth rate = 4.50%) in articles in the department-dataset. Second, only 30.4% of anesthesia department articles were published in anesthesiology journals. Third, journals related to “pain” had the lowest department-subject ratio, which was attributable to a large portion of non-anesthesia department researchers' participation in related research.Conclusions: This study showed that articles published in anesthesiology-focused and non-specialty journals demonstrate fundamentally different trends. Thus, it not only helps researchers develop a more comprehensive understanding of the current publication status and trends in anesthesiology, but also provides a basis for national academic organizations to frame relevant anesthesiology development policies and rationalize resource allocation.