A history of Guy’s, King’s and St. Thomas’ hospitals from 1649 to 2009: 360 Years of innovation in science and surgery

AbstractMuch has been achieved in the scientific and surgical fields over the last 360 years. Some institutions have contributed disproportionately to these advances. The medical schools and hospitals of Guy’s (est. 1721), King’s (est. 1840) and St. Thomas’ (est. 1173) seem to provide a focus and a catalyst for much innovation and creativity dating back to 1608. This review sets to provide an overview of the major contributors to surgical advances at these institutions over the last 360 years and what factors affected unique to these institutions contributed to the climate of discovery. It is based on a lecture given to the Osler Club of London (est. 1928) at the Royal College of Physicians in London on 4 November 2010. It is the author’s premise that the people and the discoveries they made within these institutions within three square miles of London changed the practice and understanding of science and healthcare as we know it today

Space exploration – Surgical insights and future perspectives

AbstractNASA's space exploration initiative envisions a return to the moon by 2020, the construction of inhabited lunar bases and manned missions to Mars. Such an ambitious program harbours increased risks, both logistical and physical (particularly that of trauma) within the context of a microgravity environment. This paper also discusses the cellular response to microgravity and the potential scientific and technological benefits of Space exploration

An elderly man presenting with an acute upper gastrointestinal bleed: a case report

An 80 year old man presented to the Accident and Emergency Department complaining of “black stools”, increasing shortness of breath, chest tightness and epigastric pain. An upper gastro-intestinal bleed was diagnosed and the patient was managed conservatively with aggressive resuscitation and close monitoring. An oesophogastroduodenoscopy found no cause for the bleeding which ceased and the patient was discharged with a general practitioner follow-up

Intervention reporting quality of randomized control trials in plastic surgery

Background: With the increasing number of RCTs being conducted and published in plastic surgery, clear, accurate, and complete reporting of trial information is critical for readers to properly evaluate a trial's methodology and arrive at appropriate conclusions about its merits and applicability to patients. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was introduced to address the limited guidance for reporting trial interventions. In the present study, we will apply the TIDieR checklist to evaluate the completeness of intervention reporting of RCTs in plastic surgery, compare the quality of intervention reporting before and after the guideline was published and evaluate characteristics associated with TIDieR compliance.Methods: A PubMed search was conducted to identify two trial cohorts — the first cohort published prior to the release of TIDieR and the second cohort published after its release. A random sample of 150 trials from each cohort was screened based upon predefined inclusion criteria. From the final sample, the TIDieR checklist was applied to intervention descriptions and relevant study characteristics were extracted. All screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate, blinded manner, and discrepancies were resolved by group discussion.Results: Following screening, 130 trials were included for analysis. The mean TIDieR score was 6.4 of a possible 12. Five items were reported 90% of the time, while 4 items were reported fewer than 10% of the time. We found that TIDieR publication did not affect intervention reporting (p=.22). Several trial characteristics were associated with both poorer and greater TIDieR adherence.Conclusion: Our study identified areas in which intervention reporting could be improved. Furthermore, the extent of TIDieR adoption by trialists appears to be limited, and greater efforts are needed to disseminate this reporting guideline if widespread uptake is to be expected. Alternately, it may be more beneficial to incorporate TIDieR into the more widely recognized CONSORT statement

The SCARE 2023 guideline: updating consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines

BACKGROUND: The Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines were first published in 2016 as a tool for surgeons to document and report their surgical cases in a standardised and comprehensive manner. However, with advances in technology and changes in the healthcare landscape, it is important to revise and update these guidelines to ensure they remain relevant and valuable for surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The updated guidelines were produced through a Delphi consensus exercise. Members of the SCARE 2020 guidelines Delphi group, editorial board members, and peer reviewers were invited to participate. Potential contributors were contacted by e-mail. An online survey was completed to indicate their agreement with the proposed changes to the guideline items. RESULTS: A total of 54 participants were invited to participate and 44 (81.5%) completed the survey. There was a high degree of agreement among reviewers, with 36 items (83.7%) meeting the threshold for inclusion. CONCLUSION: Through a completed Delphi consensus exercise we present the SCARE 2023 guidelines. This will provide surgeons with a comprehensive and up-to-date tool for documenting and reporting their surgical cases while highlighting the importance of patient-centred care