Surgical multicenter collaborative studies: ¿What happen in Latin America?

Antecedentes: GlobalSurg es un grupo internacional de investigadores que tiene como propósito la conducción y la diseminación de robustos estudios colaborativos, internacionales y multicéntricos. Objetivo: Exponer las estrategias necesarias y las barreras encontradas en la conducción de estudios multicéntricos masivos en cirugía. Método: Durante el segundo semestre del año 2020 se llevó a cabo el estudio Surg-Week Prospective International Cohort Study, hasta la fecha el estudio internacional más grande en el campo de la cirugía, con 141,582 pacientes incluidos. Un total de 4975 miniequipos, de uno a cinco integrantes, recopilaron datos de 116 países de todos los continentes. Resultados: La creación de un sitio web oficial del estudio, reportes con información relevante vía e-mail o grupos vía WhatsApp, conformación de un comité de diseminación del protocolo, dictado de webinars sobre publicaciones recientes del equipo, designación de líderes nacionales e internacionales, y la divulgación por medio de sociedades, fueron las estrategias utilizadas para el desarrollo de la investigación. Sin embargo, las barreras detectadas para llevar a cabo el estudio multicéntrico fueron variadas. Conclusiones: Los trabajos colaborativos permiten establecer redes entre diferentes profesionales con el fin de mejorar la calidad de la gestión, las políticas sanitarias y la atención a los pacientes en tiempos de constante cambio.Background: GlobalSurg is an international group of researchers whose purpose is to conduct and disseminate robust collaborative, international and multicenter studies. Objective: To expose the necessary strategies and the barriers crossed in conducting massive multicenter studies in surgery. Method: During the second semester of 2020, the study Surg-Week Prospective International Cohort Study was carried out. Surg-Week has been the largest international study in the field of surgery to date, with 141,582 patients included. A total of 4975 mini-teams, of between 1 and 5 members, collected data from 116 countries on all continents. Results: The creation of an official website for the study, reports with relevant information via email or groups via WhatsApp, formation of a Dissemination Committee of the protocol, delivery of webinars on recent team publications, appointment of leaders at the national and international level, and outreach through partnerships, were the strategies used for the development of the research. However, the barriers turned out to involve different aspects. Conclusions: Collaborative work allows establishing networks between different professionals with the goal of improving the quality of management, health policies and care of our patients in a timely manner of constant change

Application of machine learning and artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and classification of polycystic ovarian syndrome: a systematic review

IntroductionPolycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrinopathy in women of reproductive age and remains widely underdiagnosed leading to significant morbidity. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) hold promise in improving diagnostics. Thus, we performed a systematic review of literature to identify the utility of AI/ML in the diagnosis or classification of PCOS.MethodsWe applied a search strategy using the following databases MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Web of Science, and the IEEE Xplore Digital Library using relevant keywords. Eligible studies were identified, and results were extracted for their synthesis from inception until January 1, 2022.Results135 studies were screened and ultimately, 31 studies were included in this study. Data sources used by the AI/ML interventions included clinical data, electronic health records, and genetic and proteomic data. Ten studies (32%) employed standardized criteria (NIH, Rotterdam, or Revised International PCOS classification), while 17 (55%) used clinical information with/without imaging. The most common AI techniques employed were support vector machine (42% studies), K-nearest neighbor (26%), and regression models (23%) were the commonest AI/ML. Receiver operating curves (ROC) were employed to compare AI/ML with clinical diagnosis. Area under the ROC ranged from 73% to 100% (n=7 studies), diagnostic accuracy from 89% to 100% (n=4 studies), sensitivity from 41% to 100% (n=10 studies), specificity from 75% to 100% (n=10 studies), positive predictive value (PPV) from 68% to 95% (n=4 studies), and negative predictive value (NPV) from 94% to 99% (n=2 studies).ConclusionArtificial intelligence and machine learning provide a high diagnostic and classification performance in detecting PCOS, thereby providing an avenue for early diagnosis of this disorder. However, AI-based studies should use standardized PCOS diagnostic criteria to enhance the clinical applicability of AI/ML in PCOS and improve adherence to methodological and reporting guidelines for maximum diagnostic utility.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022295287

Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: −0.7 95%CI −1.0, −0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: −0.8 95%CI −1.4, −0.3), Clavien–Dindo complications I–II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.6 95%CI −1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.4 95%CI −0.8, −0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: −0.5 95%CI −0.9, −0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: −6.4 95%CI −11.3, −1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported

Timing of surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international prospective cohort study.

Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

A Comparative Analysis of a Self-Reported Adverse Events Analysis after Receiving One of the Available SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Schemes in Ecuador

The COVID-19 pandemic has put a lot of pressure on health systems worldwide. Mass vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has reduced morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite their safety profiles, vaccines, as with any other medical product, can cause adverse events. Yet, in countries with poor epidemiological surveillance and monitoring systems, reporting vaccine-related adverse events is a challenge. The objective of this study was to describe self-reported vaccine adverse events after receiving one of the available COVID-19 vaccine schemes in Ecuador. A cross-sectional analysis based on an online, self-reported, 32-item questionnaire was conducted in Ecuador from 1 April to 15 July 2021. Participants were invited by social media, radio, and TV to voluntarily participate in our study. A total of 6654 participants were included in this study. Furthermore, 38.2% of the participants reported having at least one comorbidity. Patients received AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sinovac vaccines, and these were distributed 38.4%, 31.1%, and 30.5%, respectively. Overall, pain or swelling at the injection site 17.2% (n = 4500) and headache 13.3% (n = 3502) were the most reported adverse events. Women addressed events supposedly attributable to vaccination or immunization [ESAVIs] (66.7%), more often than men (33.2%). After receiving the first dose of any available COVID-19 vaccine, a total of 19,501 self-reported ESAVIs were informed (87.0% were mild, 11.5% moderate, and 1.5% severe). In terms of the vaccine type and brand, the most reactogenic vaccine was AstraZeneca with 57.8%, followed by Pfizer (24.9%) and Sinovac (17.3%). After the second dose, 6776 self-reported ESAVIs were reported (87.1% mild, 10.9% moderate, and 2.1% severe). AstraZeneca vaccine users reported a higher proportion of ESAVIs (72.2%) in comparison to Pfizer/BioNTech (15.9%) and Sinovac Vaccine (11.9%). Swelling at the injection site, headache, muscle pain, and fatigue were the most common ESAVIs for the first as well as second doses. In conclusion, most ESAVIs were mild. AstraZeneca users were more likely to report adverse events. Participants without a history of COVID-19 infection, as well as those who received the first dose, were more prone to report ESAVIs

SARS-CoV-2 infection and venous thromboembolism after surgery: an international prospective cohort study

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1–6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1–2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2–3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9–3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality (5.4 (95%CI 4.3–6.7)). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly