GOSAFE - Geriatric Oncology Surgical Assessment and Functional rEcovery after Surgery: early analysis on 977 patients

Objective: Older patients with cancer value functional outcomes as much as survival, but surgical studies lack functional recovery (FR) data. The value of a standardized frailty assessment has been confirmed, yet it's infrequently utilized due to time restrictions into everyday practice. The multicenter GOSAFE study was designed to (1) evaluate the trajectory of patients' quality of life (QoL) after cancer surgery (2) assess baseline frailty indicators in unselected patients (3) clarify the most relevant tools in predicting FR and clinical outcomes. This is a report of the study design and baseline patient evaluations. Materials & Methods: GOSAFE prospectively collected a baseline multidimensional evaluation before major elective surgery in patients (≥70 years) from 26 international units. Short−/mid−/long-term surgical outcomes were recorded with QoL and FR data. Results: 1003 patients were enrolled in a 26-month span. Complete baseline data were available for 977(97.4%). Median age was 78 years (range 70–94); 52.8% males. 968(99%) lived at home, 51.6% without caregiver. 54.4% had ≥ 3 medications, 5.9% none. Patients were dependent (ADL < 5) in 7.9% of the cases. Frailty was either detected by G8 ≤ 14(68.4%), fTRST ≥ 2(37.4%), TUG > 20 s (5.2%) or ASAIII-IV (48.8%). Major comorbidities (CACI > 6) were detected in 36%; 20.9% of patients had cognitive impairment according to Mini-Cog. Conclusion: The GOSAFE showed that frailty is frequent in older patients undergoing cancer surgery. QoL and FR, for the first time, are going to be primary outcomes of a real-life observational study. The crucial role of frailty assessment is going to be addressed in the ability to predict postoperative outcomes and to correlate with QoL and FR

GOSAFE - Geriatric Oncology Surgical Assessment and Functional rEcovery after Surgery: early analysis on 977 patients

Objective: Older patients with cancer value functional outcomes as much as survival, but surgical studies lack functional recovery (FR) data. The value of a standardized frailty assessment has been confirmed, yet it's infrequently utilized due to time restrictions into everyday practice. The multicenter GOSAFE study was designed to (1) evaluate the trajectory of patients' quality of life (QoL) after cancer surgery (2) assess baseline frailty indicators in unselected patients (3) clarify the most relevant tools in predicting FR and clinical outcomes. This is a report of the study design and baseline patient evaluations. Materials & Methods: GOSAFE prospectively collected a baseline multidimensional evaluation before major elective surgery in patients (≥70 years) from 26 international units. Short−/mid−/long-term surgical outcomes were recorded with QoL and FR data. Results: 1003 patients were enrolled in a 26-month span. Complete baseline data were available for 977(97.4%). Median age was 78 years (range 70–94); 52.8% males. 968(99%) lived at home, 51.6% without caregiver. 54.4% had ≥ 3 medications, 5.9% none. Patients were dependent (ADL < 5) in 7.9% of the cases. Frailty was either detected by G8 ≤ 14(68.4%), fTRST ≥ 2(37.4%), TUG > 20 s (5.2%) or ASAIII-IV (48.8%). Major comorbidities (CACI > 6) were detected in 36%; 20.9% of patients had cognitive impairment according to Mini-Cog. Conclusion: The GOSAFE showed that frailty is frequent in older patients undergoing cancer surgery. QoL and FR, for the first time, are going to be primary outcomes of a real-life observational study. The crucial role of frailty assessment is going to be addressed in the ability to predict postoperative outcomes and to correlate with QoL and FR

Time for a paradigm shift in shared decision-making in trauma and emergency surgery? Results from an international survey

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) between clinicians and patients is one of the pillars of the modern patient-centric philosophy of care. This study aims to explore SDM in the discipline of trauma and emergency surgery, investigating its interpretation as well as the barriers and facilitators for its implementation among surgeons. Methods Grounding on the literature on the topics of the understanding, barriers, and facilitators of SDM in trauma and emergency surgery, a survey was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was sent to all 917 WSES members, advertised through the society’s website, and shared on the society’s Twitter profile. Results A total of 650 trauma and emergency surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the initiative. Less than half of the surgeons understood SDM, and 30% still saw the value in exclusively engaging multidisciplinary provider teams without involving the patient. Several barriers to effectively partnering with the patient in the decision-making process were identified, such as the lack of time and the need to concentrate on making medical teams work smoothly. Discussion Our investigation underlines how only a minority of trauma and emergency surgeons understand SDM, and perhaps, the value of SDM is not fully accepted in trauma and emergency situations. The inclusion of SDM practices in clinical guidelines may represent the most feasible and advocated solutions

Surgeons' perspectives on artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making in trauma and emergency contexts: results from an international survey

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining traction in medicine and surgery. AI-based applications can offer tools to examine high-volume data to inform predictive analytics that supports complex decision-making processes. Time-sensitive trauma and emergency contexts are often challenging. The study aims to investigate trauma and emergency surgeons' knowledge and perception of using AI-based tools in clinical decision-making processes. Methods: An online survey grounded on literature regarding AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was advertised to 917 WSES members through the society's website and Twitter profile. Results: 650 surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the survey. Results depict the presence of technology enthusiasts and skeptics and surgeons' preference toward more classical decision-making aids like clinical guidelines, traditional training, and the support of their multidisciplinary colleagues. A lack of knowledge about several AI-related aspects emerges and is associated with mistrust. Discussion: The trauma and emergency surgical community is divided into those who firmly believe in the potential of AI and those who do not understand or trust AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids. Academic societies and surgical training programs should promote a foundational, working knowledge of clinical AI