Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesThere is emerging use of artificial intelligence (AI) models to aid diagnostic imaging. This review examined and critically appraised the application of AI models to identify surgical pathology from radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity, to identify current limitations and inform future research.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesSystematic database searches (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were performed. Date limitations (January 2012 to July 2021) were applied.Eligibility criteriaPrimary research studies were considered for eligibility using the PIRT (participants, index test(s), reference standard and target condition) framework. Only publications in the English language were eligible for inclusion in the review.Data extraction and synthesisStudy characteristics, descriptions of AI models and outcomes assessing diagnostic performance were extracted by independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was performed in accordance with the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2)).ResultsFifteen retrospective studies were included. Studies were diverse in surgical specialty, the intention of the AI applications and the models used. AI training and test sets comprised a median of 130 (range: 5–2440) and 37 (range: 10–1045) patients, respectively. Diagnostic performance of models varied (range: 70%–95% sensitivity, 53%–98% specificity). Only four studies compared the AI model with human performance. Reporting of studies was unstandardised and often lacking in detail. Most studies (n=14) were judged as having overall high risk of bias with concerns regarding applicability.ConclusionsAI application in this field is diverse. Adherence to reporting guidelines is warranted. With finite healthcare resources, future endeavours may benefit from targeting areas where radiological expertise is in high demand to provide greater efficiency in clinical care. Translation to clinical practice and adoption of a multidisciplinary approach should be of high priority.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021237249.

IntroductionThe application of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies as a diagnostic aid in healthcare is increasing. Benefits include applications to improve health systems, such as rapid and accurate interpretation of medical images. This may improve the performance of diagnostic, prognostic and management decisions. While a large amount of work has been undertaken discussing the role of AI little is understood regarding the performance of such applications in the clinical setting. This systematic review aims to critically appraise the diagnostic performance of AI algorithms to identify disease from cross-sectional radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity, to identify current limitations and inform future research.Methods and analysisA systematic search will be conducted on Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant studies. Primary studies where AI-based technologies have been used as a diagnostic aid in cross-sectional radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity will be included. Diagnostic accuracy of AI models, including reported sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve will be examined and compared with standard practice. Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Findings will be reported according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required as primary data will not be collected. The results will inform further research studies in this field. Findings will be disseminated at relevant conferences, on social media and published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021237249.

Introduction There is variation in the investigation, management, and surgical technique of acutely symptomatic umbilical hernias and optimal strategies remain to be established. This survey aimed to identify key variables influencing decision-making and preferred surgical techniques in emergency umbilical hernia care to help inform trial design and understand potential challenges to trial delivery. Methods A survey was distributed to surgeons through social media, personal contacts, and ASGBI lists. It comprised five sections: (i) performer of repair, (ii) repair preferences, (iii) important outcomes, (iv) perioperative antibiotic use, and (v) potential future trial design. Results There were 105 respondents, of which 49 (46.6%) were consultants. The median largest defect surgeons would attempt to repair with sutures alone was 2 cm (IQR 2–4 cm). In the acute setting, the most common mesh preferences are preperitoneal plane placement ( n  = 61, 58.1%), with synthetic non-absorbable mesh ( n  = 72, 68.6%), in clean ( n  = 41, 39.0%) or clean-contaminated ( n  = 52, 49.5%) wounds. Respondents believed suture repair to be associated with better short-term outcomes, and mesh repair with better long-term outcomes. Pre-/intra-operative antibiotics were very frequently given ( n  = 48, 45.7%) whilst post-operative antibiotics were rarely ( n  = 41, 39%) or very rarely ( n  = 28, 26.7%) given. The trial design felt to most likely influence practice is comparing mesh and suture repair, and post-operative antibiotics versus no post-operative antibiotics. Respondents indicated that to change their practice, the median difference in surgical site infection rate and recurrence rate would both need to be 5%. Conclusion This survey provides insight into surgical preferences in emergency umbilical hernia management, offering guidance for the design of future trials.

Objective To perform a systematic review of published literature for the factors reported to predict outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Background ERAS programmes and the use of laparoscopy have been widely adopted in colorectal surgery bringing short-term patient benefit. However, there is a minority of patients that do not benefit from these strategies and their identification is not well characterised. The factors that underpin outcomes from ERAS programmes for laparoscopic patients are not understood. Methods A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2000 and 2015. The search strategy captured terms for ERAS, colorectal resection, prediction and outcome measures. Results Thirty-four studies containing 10,861 laparoscopic resections were included. Thirty-one (91 %) studies were confined to elective cases. Predictive analysis of outcome was most frequently based on length of stay (LOS), morbidity and readmission which were the main outcome measures of 29 (85 %), 26 (76 %) and 18 (53 %) of the included studies, respectively. Forty-seven percentage of included studies investigated the impact of ERAS programme compliance on these outcomes. Reduced protocol compliance was the most frequently identified modifiable predictive factor for adverse LOS, morbidity and readmission. Conclusion Protocol compliance is the most frequently reported predictive factor for outcomes of ERAS programmes following laparoscopic colorectal resection. Reduced compliance increases LOS, morbidity and readmission to hospital. The impact of compliance with individual ERAS protocol elements is insufficiently studied, and the lack of a standardised framework for evaluating ERAS programmes makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions about which factors exert the greatest impact on outcome after laparoscopic colorectal resection.

Surgery is an invasive procedure evoking acute inflammatory and immune responses that can influence risk for postoperative complications including cognitive dysfunction and delirium. Although the specific mechanisms driving these responses have not been well-characterized, they are hypothesized to involve the epigenetic regulation of gene expression. We quantified genome-wide levels of DNA methylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) longitudinally collected from a cohort of elderly patients undergoing major surgery, comparing samples collected at baseline to those collected immediately post-operatively and at discharge from hospital. We identified acute changes in measured DNA methylation at sites annotated to immune system genes, paralleling changes in serum-levels of markers including C-reactive protein (CRP) and Interleukin 6 (IL-6) measured in the same individuals. Many of the observed changes in measured DNA methylation were consistent across different types of major surgery, although there was notable heterogeneity between surgery types at certain loci. The acute changes in measured DNA methylation induced by surgery are relatively stable in the post-operative period, generally persisting until discharge from hospital. Our results highlight the dramatic alterations in gene regulation induced by invasive surgery, primarily reflecting upregulation of the immune system in response to trauma, wound healing and anaesthesia.

Millions of elective surgical procedures were cancelled worldwide during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.1 This enabled redistribution of staff and resources to provide care for patients with COVID-19 and addressed evidence that perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality.2 Although some hospitals established COVID-19-free surgical pathways to create safe elective surgery capacity,3 the National Health Service (NHS) in England has not returned to pre-pandemic elective surgery activity levels. [...]we did not explore regional variation, which could arise as a result of differences in resource availability, accessibility of COVID-19-free surgical pathways, or baseline surgical case mix. [...]we have not addressed differences between surgical specialties.

BackgroundVariation exists in practice pertaining to bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A survey of EAES members prioritized this topic to be addressed by a clinical practice guideline.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on the use of bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders.MethodsThis is a collaborative project of EAES, SAGES, and ESCP. We updated a previous systematic review and performed a network meta-analysis of interventions. We appraised the certainty of the evidence for each comparison, using the GRADE and CINeMA methods. A panel of general and colorectal surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, an anesthetist, and a patient representative discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost, and use of resources, moderated by a GIN-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey.ResultsThe panel suggests either oral antibiotics alone prior to minimally invasive right colon resection or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics; MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive left colon and sigmoid resection, and prior to minimally invasive right colon resection when there is an intention to perform intracorporeal anastomosis; and MBP plus oral antibiotics plus enema prior to minimally invasive rectal surgery (conditional recommendations); and recommends MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery, when there is an intention to localize the lesion intraoperatively (strong recommendation). The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/LwvKej.ConclusionThis guideline provides recommendations on bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery for different procedures, using highest methodological standards, through a structured framework informed by key stakeholders.Guideline registration number PREPARE-2023CN045.

BackgroundClinical practice recommendations for the management of acute appendicitis in pregnancy are lacking.ObjectiveTo develop an evidence-informed, trustworthy guideline on the management of appendicitis in pregnancy. We aimed to address the questions of conservative or surgical management, and laparoscopic or open surgery for acute appendicitis.MethodsWe performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence appraisal using the GRADE methodology. A European, multidisciplinary panel of surgeons, obstetricians/gynecologists, a midwife, and 3 patient representatives reached consensus through an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to formulate the recommendations. The project was developed in an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp).ResultsResearch evidence was of very low certainty. We recommend operative treatment over conservative management in pregnant patients with complicated appendicitis or appendicolith on imaging studies (strong recommendation). We suggest operative treatment over conservative management in pregnant patients with uncomplicated appendicitis and no appendicolith on imaging studies (weak recommendation). We suggest laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis until the 20th week of gestation, or when the fundus of the uterus is below the level of the umbilicus; and laparoscopic or open appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis beyond the 20th week of gestation, or when the fundus of the uterus is above the level of the umbilicus, depending on the preference and expertise of the surgeon.ConclusionThrough a structured, evidence-informed approach, an interdisciplinary panel provides a strong recommendation to perform appendectomy for complicated appendicitis or appendicolith, and laparoscopic or open appendectomy beyond the 20th week, based on the surgeon’s preference and expertise.Guideline registration numberIPGRP-2022CN210.

Background No standardized written or volumetric definition exists for ‘loss of domain’ (LOD). This limits the utility of LOD as a morphological descriptor and as a predictor of peri- and postoperative outcomes. Consequently, our aim was to establish definitions for LOD via consensus of expert abdominal wall surgeons. Methods A Delphi study involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) surgeons was performed. Four written and two volumetric definitions of LOD were identified via systematic review. Panelists completed a questionnaire that suggested these definitions as standardized definitions of LOD. Consensus on a preferred term was pre-defined as achieved when selected by ≥80% of panelists. Terms scoring <20% were removed. Results Voting commenced August 2018 and was completed in January 2019. Written definition: During Round 1, two definitions were removed and seven new definitions were suggested, leaving nine definitions for consideration. For Round 2, panelists were asked to select all appealing definitions. Thereafter, common concepts were identified during analysis, from which the facilitators advanced a new written definition. This received 100% agreement in Round 3. Volumetric definition: Initially, panelists were evenly split, but consensus for the Sabbagh method was achieved. Panelists could not reach consensus regarding a threshold LOD value that would preclude surgery. Conclusions Consensus for written and volumetric definitions of LOD was achieved from 20 internationally recognized AWR surgeons. Adoption of these definitions will help standardize the use of LOD for both clinical and academic activities.

BackgroundThere is a lack of trustworthy evidence-informed guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in elderly patients.MethodsWe developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE and AGREE II standards. The steering group consisted of general surgeons, members of the EAES Research Committee/Guidelines Subcommittee with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, biostatisticians, and a guideline methodologist. The guideline panel consisted of three general surgeons, an intensive care physician, a geriatrician and a patient advocate. We conducted systematic reviews and the results of evidence synthesis were summarized in evidence tables. Recommendations were authored and published through an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), with the guideline panel making use of an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to arrive at consensus.ResultsThis rapid guideline provides a weak recommendation against the use of clinical scoring systems to replace cross-sectional imaging in the diagnostic approach of suspected appendicitis in elderly patients. It provides a weak recommendation against the use of antibiotics alone over surgical treatment in patients who are deemed fit for surgery, and a weak recommendation for laparoscopic over open surgery. Furthermore, it provides a summary of surgery-associated risks in elderly patients. The guidelines, with recommendations, evidence summaries and decision aids in user-friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4494.ConclusionsThis rapid guideline provides evidence-informed trustworthy recommendations on the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in elderly patients.