Minimally invasive surgery and cancer: controversies part 1

Perhaps there is no more important issue in the care of surgical patients than the appropriate use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for patients with cancer. Important advances in surgical technique have an impact on early perioperative morbidity, length of hospital stay, pain management, and quality of life issues, as clearly proved with MIS. However, for oncology patients, historically, the most important clinical questions have been answered in the context of prospective randomized trials. Important considerations for MIS and cancer have been addressed, such as what are the important immunologic consequences of MIS versus open surgery and what is the role of laparoscopy in the staging of gastrointestinal cancers? This review article discusses many of the key controversies in the minimally invasive treatment of cancer using the pro–con debate format

International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis

Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS

Geospatial analysis of access to dermatology care in Los Angeles County: a cross sectional study

Geographic maldistribution of dermatologists contributes to disparities in access to dermatologic care. We aimed to investigate the geographic distribution of, and differences in wait times for medical dermatology services in Los Angeles County (LAC). We placed phone calls to 251 dermatology practices in LAC to ask for a new patient appointment for a changing mole. We found West LAC (Service Planning Area [SPA] 5) had the highest number of dermatologists and South LAC (SPA 6) had the lowest (26.1 versus 0 per 100,000 residents, P=0.01). Service Planning Area 6 has a higher non-White, uninsured, and impoverished population than SPA 5. Dermatology appointment wait times and Medicaid acceptance varied between SPAs but was not statistically significant (P=0.37 and P=0.20, respectively). Medicaid-accepting practices had a significantly longer mean wait time for an appointment than practices that did not accept Medicaid (26.1 versus 15.1 days, P=0.003). Regions with predominantly non-White, Spanish-speaking, and medically underinsured residents were found to be disproportionately lacking in dermatologists across LAC, which may contribute to impaired access to dermatology services in LAC