Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)-based nursing interventions in improving postoperative recovery, reducing complications, and enhancing patient satisfaction and quality of life in patients undergoing endoscopic resection for early gastrointestinal tumors. Methods A single-center, randomized, single-blind controlled trial was conducted from October 2023 to October 2024 at a tertiary hospital. A total of 120 patients with early-stage gastrointestinal tumors scheduled for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) were randomly assigned to the ERAS group ( n  = 60) or the control group (NC, n  = 60). Data collection included Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36, patient satisfaction, and length of hospital stay. Statistical analyses included repeated measures ANOVA and chi-square tests, with a significance threshold of P  < 0.05. Results Compared to the NC group, the ERAS group demonstrated significantly lower CCI scores and fewer Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications at 3 days, 2 weeks, and 3 months postoperatively ( P  < 0.05). The ERAS group also reported shorter hospital stays (4.8 ± 1.5 vs. 6.3 ± 1.8 days, P  < 0.001). VAS scores in the ERAS group were significantly lower at 24 h and 3 days postoperatively ( P  < 0.001), with differences diminishing over time. Functional recovery, measured by 6MWT, was significantly better in the ERAS group at all time points except 12 months. HRQoL scores in the ERAS group were significantly higher at 3 months, particularly in functional and symptom dimensions ( P  < 0.05), and have higher patient satisfaction rates across all follow-up time points ( P  < 0.05). Conclusion ERAS-based nursing interventions significantly improved postoperative recovery, reduced complications, shortened hospital stays, and enhanced patient satisfaction and quality of life in patients undergoing minimally invasive endoscopic resection for early gastrointestinal tumors. These findings support the integration of ERAS principles into nursing care protocols to optimize surgical outcomes.

Background There has been a rapid increase in prevalence of obesity, and bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment to reduce all-cause mortality. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) comprise approximately 1% of GI tumors and are the most commonly encountered incidental tumor at the time of bariatric surgery. They have a reported prevalence of approximately 0.5%; however, there are no established guidelines for incidental GISTs. Methods This study performed a systematic literature search using PubMed to identify 100 articles from 2005 to 2023 on incidental GIST tumors found during bariatric operations. Results Total prevalence of GISTs was 0.54% with an average size of 7.04 mm. Management of these lesions should prioritize negative margins with the least invasive resection. Tumors able to be resected without alteration to bariatric surgery should be managed with a complete wedge resection prioritizing negative margins. In tumors where resection requires alteration to bariatric surgical plan, the decision to proceed with resection and alteration of bariatric surgical plan should be made only if previous discussions have been made with patient. Lastly, if resection of the GIST precludes the ability to perform the bariatric procedure, consideration to resect the GIST with the goal of negative margins should be prioritized with a plan to discuss future bariatric procedures after. Conclusion The goal of this paper is to remind bariatric surgeons to be aware of GISTs and provide the possible approaches to management.

Pancreatic cancer has an extremely poor prognosis and prolonged survival is achieved only by resection with macroscopic tumor clearance. There is a strong rationale for a neoadjuvant approach, since a relevant percentage of pancreatic cancer patients present with non-metastatic but locally advanced disease and microscopic incomplete resections are common. The objective of the present analysis was to systematically review studies concerning the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on tumor response, toxicity, resection, and survival percentages in pancreatic cancer. Trials were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1966 to December 2009 as well as through reference lists of articles and proceedings of major meetings. Retrospective and prospective studies analyzing neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy of pancreatic cancer patients, followed by re-staging, and surgical exploration/resection were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects models. Primary outcome measures were proportions of tumor response categories and percentages of exploration and resection. A total of 111 studies (n = 4,394) including 56 phase I-II trials were analyzed. A median of 31 (interquartile range [IQR] 19-46) patients per study were included. Studies were subdivided into surveys considering initially resectable tumors (group 1) and initially non-resectable (borderline resectable/unresectable) tumors (group 2). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was given in 96.4% of the studies with the main agents gemcitabine, 5-FU (and oral analogues), mitomycin C, and platinum compounds. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy was applied in 93.7% of the studies with doses ranging from 24 to 63 Gy. Averaged complete/partial response probabilities were 3.6% (95% CI 2%-5.5%)/30.6% (95% CI 20.7%-41.4%) and 4.8% (95% CI 3.5%-6.4%)/30.2% (95% CI 24.5%-36.3%) for groups 1 and 2, respectively; whereas progressive disease fraction was estimated to 20.9% (95% CI 16.9%-25.3%) and 20.8% (95% CI 14.5%-27.8%). In group 1, resectability was estimated to 73.6% (95% CI 65.9%-80.6%) compared to 33.2% (95% CI 25.8%-41.1%) in group 2. Higher resection-associated morbidity and mortality rates were observed in group 2 versus group 1 (26.7%, 95% CI 20.7%-33.3% versus 39.1%, 95% CI 29.5%-49.1%; and 3.9%, 95% CI 2.2%-6% versus 7.1%, 95% CI 5.1%-9.5%). Combination chemotherapies resulted in higher estimated response and resection probabilities for patients with initially non-resectable tumors (\"non-resectable tumor patients\") compared to monotherapy. Estimated median survival following resection was 23.3 (range 12-54) mo for group 1 and 20.5 (range 9-62) mo for group 2 patients. In patients with initially resectable tumors (\"resectable tumor patients\"), resection frequencies and survival after neoadjuvant therapy are similar to those of patients with primarily resected tumors and adjuvant therapy. Approximately one-third of initially staged non-resectable tumor patients would be expected to have resectable tumors following neoadjuvant therapy, with comparable survival as initially resectable tumor patients. Thus, patients with locally non-resectable tumors should be included in neoadjuvant protocols and subsequently re-evaluated for resection.

Background and Objectives: Robotic surgery has been widely adopted in general surgery worldwide but access to this technology is still limited to a few hospitals. With the recent introduction of new robotic platforms, several studies reported the feasibility of different surgical procedures. The aim of this systematic review is to highlight the current clinical practice with the new robotic platforms in general surgery. Materials and Methods: A grey literature search was performed on the Internet to identify the available robotic systems. A PRISMA compliant systematic review was conducted for all English articles up to 10 February 2023 searching the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Clinical outcomes, training process, operating surgeon background, cost-analysis, and specific registries were evaluated. Results: A total of 103 studies were included for qualitative synthesis after the full-text screening. Of the fifteen robotic platforms identified, only seven were adopted in a clinical environment. Out of 4053 patients, 2819 were operated on with a new robotic device. Hepatopancreatobiliary surgery specialty performed the majority of procedures, and the most performed procedure was cholecystectomy. Globally, 109 emergency surgeries were reported. Concerning the training process, only 45 papers reported the background of the operating surgeon, and only 28 papers described the training process on the surgical platform. Only one cost-analysis compared a new robot to the existing reference. Two manufacturers promoted a specific registry to collect clinical outcomes. Conclusions: This systematic review highlights the feasibility of most surgical procedures in general surgery using the new robotic platforms. Adoption of these new devices in general surgery is constantly growing with the extension of regulatory approvals. Standardization of the training process and the assessment of skills’ transferability is still lacking. Further studies are required to better understand the real clinical and economical benefit.

Surgical resection and endoscopic resection comprise two alternative options for the treatment of submucosal tumors (SMTs) originating from the muscularis propria (MP) layer. Endoscopic resection is minimally invasive compared with surgical resection. Conventional non-tunneling techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFR) have been demonstrated to be safe and effective. However, these techniques fail to maintain the integrity of the mucosa and induce high risk of perforation, infection, and postoperative strictures. Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) is a novel surgical technique that can maintain the integrity of the mucosa by establishing a tunnel between the submucosal and the MP layers. STER has been proven to be effective and safe for the treatment of SMTs. Currently, STER has become a standard treatment for gastrointestinal (GI) SMTs originating from the MP layer, notably in China. In the present review, we describe the indications, procedures, postoperative care, efficacy and safety outcomes, and future perspectives of STER for GI SMTs originating from the MP layer.

BackgroundSurgical phase recognition using computer vision presents an essential requirement for artificial intelligence-assisted analysis of surgical workflow. Its performance is heavily dependent on large amounts of annotated video data, which remain a limited resource, especially concerning highly specialized procedures. Knowledge transfer from common to more complex procedures can promote data efficiency. Phase recognition models trained on large, readily available datasets may be extrapolated and transferred to smaller datasets of different procedures to improve generalizability. The conditions under which transfer learning is appropriate and feasible remain to be established.MethodsWe defined ten operative phases for the laparoscopic part of Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy through expert consensus. A dataset of 40 videos was annotated accordingly. The knowledge transfer capability of an established model architecture for phase recognition (CNN + LSTM) was adapted to generate a “Transferal Esophagectomy Network” (TEsoNet) for co-training and transfer learning from laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy to the laparoscopic part of Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy, exploring different training set compositions and training weights.ResultsThe explored model architecture is capable of accurate phase detection in complex procedures, such as Esophagectomy, even with low quantities of training data. Knowledge transfer between two upper gastrointestinal procedures is feasible and achieves reasonable accuracy with respect to operative phases with high procedural overlap.ConclusionRobust phase recognition models can achieve reasonable yet phase-specific accuracy through transfer learning and co-training between two related procedures, even when exposed to small amounts of training data of the target procedure. Further exploration is required to determine appropriate data amounts, key characteristics of the training procedure and temporal annotation methods required for successful transferal phase recognition. Transfer learning across different procedures addressing small datasets may increase data efficiency. Finally, to enable the surgical application of AI for intraoperative risk mitigation, coverage of rare, specialized procedures needs to be explored.

Background The most common site of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) is the stomach, and gastric GISTs (gGISTs) occur most often in elderly patients. However, the clinicopathological features, treatment patterns, and prognosis of elderly patients with gGISTs remain unclear. Methods We retrospectively collected clinicopathological and prognostic data for patients with primary gGISTs who underwent curative-intent resection at 10 medical centers in China from 1998 to 2015. Results Over the 18 years, 10 medical centers treated 1846 patients with primary gGISTs by curative-intent resection. The median age was 59 (range 18–91) years. The patients were classified into two groups according to age, namely an elderly group (≥ 65 years of age) and a nonelderly group (< 65 years of age). The elderly group had more comorbidities (40.7% vs 23.5%, p  = 0.011), a higher rate of postoperative complications (14.4% vs 8.7%, p  = 0.031), and a lower proportion of intermediate/high-risk patients who received adjuvant therapy (30.0% vs 66.8%, p  = 0.001) than did the nonelderly group. Regarding pathological outcomes, a significant difference in tumor necrosis was observed between the two groups ( p  = 0.002), and more cases of tumor necrosis occurred in the elderly group than in the nonelderly group. Regarding postoperative recovery outcomes, no significant difference was observed between the two groups . Univariate analysis showed that age, postoperative complications, adjuvant therapy, tumor size, mitotic count, modified National Institutes of Health (NIH) risk category, and tumor necrosis were factors that affected disease-free survival (DFS). Multivariate analysis showed that modified NIH risk category was the only independent factor affecting DFS. The 5-year DFS rates in the nonelderly and elderly groups were 88.1% and 81.4%, respectively ( p  = 0.034), and the 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 90.4% and 85.5% ( p  = 0.038), respectively. Conclusions Currently, the treatment patterns for elderly patients with gGISTs remain the same as those for young patients with gGISTs. Elderly gGIST patients had more comorbidities and postoperative complications than did nonelderly gGIST patients, and fewer elderly gGIST patients received postoperative adjuvant therapy. Elderly gGIST patients also had a higher rate of tumor necrosis and worse DFS and OS than did young gGIST patients. Further exploration into the diagnosis and treatment patterns of elderly patients is therefore essential.

BackgroundThough gastrojejunostomy (GJ) has been a standard palliative procedure for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), endoscopic stenting (ES) has shown to provide benefits due to its non-invasive approach. The aim of this review is to perform a comprehensive evaluation of ES versus GJ for the palliation of malignant GOO.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched and comparative studies of adult GOO patients undergoing ES or GJ were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes were survival time and mortality. Secondary outcomes included technical success, clinical success, reinterventions, days until oral food tolerance, postoperative adjuvant palliative chemotherapy, postoperative morbidities, length of stay (LOS), and costs. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse-variance random effects were performed.ResultsAfter identifying 2222 citations, 39 full-text articles fit the inclusion criteria. In total, 3128 ES patients (41.4% female, age: 68.0 years) and 2116 GJ patients (40.4% female, age: 66.8 years) were included. ES patients experienced a shorter survival time (mean difference -24.77 days, 95% Cl − 45.11 to  − 4.43, p = 0.02) and were less likely to undergo adjuvant palliative chemotherapy (risk ratio 0.81, 95% Cl 0.70 to 0.93, p = 0.004). The ES group had a shorter LOS, shorter time to oral intake of liquids and solids, and less surgical site infections (risk ratio 0.30, 95% Cl 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01). The patients in the ES group were at greater risk of requiring reintervention (risk ratio 2.60, 95% Cl 1.87 to 3.63, p < 0.001).ConclusionES results in less postoperative morbidity and shorter LOS when compared to GJ, however, this may be at the cost of decreased initiation of adjuvant palliative chemotherapy and overall survival, as well as increased risk of reintervention. Both techniques are likely appropriate in select clinical scenarios.