Impact of remoteness and rurality on the treatment and survival of patients with glioblastoma in the north of Scotland

Peer reviewe

Demographics of cauda equina syndrome: a population based incidence study

Introduction: Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) has significant medical, social and legal consequences. Understanding the number of people presenting with CES and their demographic features is essential for planning healthcare services to ensure timely and appropriate management. We aimed to establish the incidence of CES in a single country and stratify incidence by age, gender, and socioeconomic status. As no consensus clinical definition of CES exists, we compared incidence using different diagnostic criteria. Methods: All patients presenting with radiological compression of the cauda equina due to degenerative disc disease and clinical CES requiring emergency surgical decompression during a one-year period were identified at all centers performing emergency spinal surgery across Scotland. Initial patient identification occurred during the emergency hospital admission, and case ascertainment was checked using ICD-10 diagnostic coding. Clinical information was reviewed and incidence rates for all demographic and clinical groups were calculated. Results: We identified 149 patients with CES in one year from a total population of 5.4 million, giving a crude incidence of 2.7 (95% CI: 2.3-3.2) per 100,000 per year. CES occurred more commonly in females and in the 30-49 year age range, with an incidence per year of 7.2 (95% CI 4.7-10.6) per 100,000 females age 30-39. There was no association between CES and socioeconomic status. CES requiring catheterisation had an incidence of 1.1 (95% CI: 0.8-1.5) per 100,000 adults per year. The use of ICD-10 codes alone to identify cases gave much higher incidence rates, but was inaccurate, with 55% (117/211) of patients with a new ICD-10 code for CES found not to have CES on clinical notes review. Conclusion: CES occurred more commonly in females and in those between 30-49 years, and had no association with socioeconomic status. The incidence of CES in Scotland is at least four times higher than previous European estimates of 0.3-0.6 per 100,000 population per year. Incidence varies with clinical diagnostic criteria. To enable comparison of rates of CES across populations, we recommend using standardised clinical and radiological criteria and standardisation for population structure

Presentation, management, and outcomes of cauda equina syndrome up to one year after surgery, using clinician and participant reporting: a multi-centre prospective cohort study

Background: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) results from nerve root compression in the lumbosacral spine, usually due to a prolapsed intervertebral disc. Evidence for management of CES is limited by its infrequent occurrence and lack of standardised clinical definitions and outcome measures. Methods: This is a prospective multi-centre observational cohort study of adults with CES in the UK. We assessed presentation, investigation, management, and all Core Outcome Set domains up to one year post-operatively using clinician and participant reporting. Univariable and multivariable associations with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and urinary outcomes were investigated. Findings: In 621 participants with CES, catheterisation for urinary retention was required pre-operatively in 31% (191/615). At discharge, only 13% (78/616) required a catheter. Median time to surgery from symptom onset was 3 days (IQR:1–8) with 32% (175/545) undergoing surgery within 48 h. Earlier surgery was associated with catheterisation (OR:2.2, 95%CI:1.5–3.3) but not with admission ODI or radiological compression. In multivariable analyses catheter requirement at discharge was associated with pre-operative catheterisation (OR:10.6, 95%CI:5.8–20.4) and one-year ODI was associated with presentation ODI (r = 0.3, 95%CI:0.2–0.4), but neither outcome was associated with time to surgery or radiological compression. Additional healthcare services were required by 65% (320/490) during one year follow up. Interpretation: Post-operative functional improvement occurred even in those presenting with urinary retention. There was no association between outcomes and time to surgery in this observational study. Significant healthcare needs remained post-operatively. Funding: DCN Endowment Fund funded study administration. Castor EDC provided database use. No other study funding was received

Data Sheet 1_Autonomous surgical robotic systems and the liability dilemma.pdf

BackgroundAdvances in machine learning and robotics have allowed the development of increasingly autonomous robotic systems which are able to make decisions and learn from experience. This distribution of decision-making away from human supervision poses a legal challenge for determining liability.MethodsThe iRobotSurgeon survey aimed to explore public opinion towards the issue of liability with robotic surgical systems. The survey included five hypothetical scenarios where a patient comes to harm and the respondent needs to determine who they believe is most responsible: the surgeon, the robot manufacturer, the hospital, or another party.ResultsA total of 2,191 completed surveys were gathered evaluating 10,955 individual scenario responses from 78 countries spanning 6 continents. The survey demonstrated a pattern in which participants were sensitive to shifts from fully surgeon-controlled scenarios to scenarios in which robotic systems played a larger role in decision-making such that surgeons were blamed less. However, there was a limit to this shift with human surgeons still being ascribed blame in scenarios of autonomous robotic systems where humans had no role in decision-making. Importantly, there was no clear consensus among respondents where to allocate blame in the case of harm occurring from a fully autonomous system.ConclusionsThe iRobotSurgeon Survey demonstrated a dilemma among respondents on who to blame when harm is caused by a fully autonomous surgical robotic system. Importantly, it also showed that the surgeon is ascribed blame even when they have had no role in decision-making which adds weight to concerns that human operators could act as “moral crumple zones” and bear the brunt of legal responsibility when a complex autonomous system causes harm.</p