STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery

Introduction: Strengthening The Reporting Of Cohort Studies in Surgery (STROCSS) guidelines were developed in 2017 in order to improve the reporting quality of observational studies in surgery and updated in 2019. In order to maintain relevance and continue upholding good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery, we aimed to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. / Methods: A STROCSS 2021 steering group was formed to come up with proposals to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. An expert panel of researchers assessed these proposals and judged whether they should become part of STROCSS 2021 guidelines or not, through a Delphi consensus exercise. / Results: 42 people (89%) completed the DELPHI survey and hence participated in the development of STROCSS 2021 guidelines. All items received a score between 7 and 9 by greater than 70% of the participants, indicating a high level of agreement among the DELPHI group members with the proposed changes to all the items. / Conclusion: We present updated STROCSS 2021 guidelines to ensure ongoing good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery

Postoperative outcomes in oesophagectomy with trainee involvement

BACKGROUND: The complexity of oesophageal surgery and the significant risk of morbidity necessitates that oesophagectomy is predominantly performed by a consultant surgeon, or a senior trainee under their supervision. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of trainee involvement in oesophagectomy on postoperative outcomes in an international multicentre setting. METHODS: Data from the multicentre Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group (OGAA) cohort study were analysed, which comprised prospectively collected data from patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018. Procedures were grouped by the level of trainee involvement, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare patient outcomes across groups. RESULTS: Of 2232 oesophagectomies from 137 centres in 41 countries, trainees were involved in 29.1 per cent of them (n = 650), performing only the abdominal phase in 230, only the chest and/or neck phases in 130, and all phases in 315 procedures. For procedures with a chest anastomosis, those with trainee involvement had similar 90-day mortality, complication and reoperation rates to consultant-performed oesophagectomies (P = 0.451, P = 0.318, and P = 0.382, respectively), while anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower in the trainee groups (P = 0.030). Procedures with a neck anastomosis had equivalent complication, anastomotic leak, and reoperation rates (P = 0.150, P = 0.430, and P = 0.632, respectively) in trainee-involved versus consultant-performed oesophagectomies, with significantly lower 90-day mortality in the trainee groups (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Trainee involvement was not found to be associated with significantly inferior postoperative outcomes for selected patients undergoing oesophagectomy. The results support continued supervised trainee involvement in oesophageal cancer surgery

The SCARE Statement: Consensus-based surgical case report guidelines

AbstractIntroductionCase reports have been a long held tradition within the surgical literature. Reporting guidelines can improve transparency and reporting quality. However, recent consensus-based guidelines for case reports (CARE) are not surgically focused. Our objective was to develop surgical case report guidelines.MethodsThe CARE statement was used as the basis for a Delphi consensus. The Delphi questionnaire was administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi methodology. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons and others with expertise in the reporting of case reports were invited to participate. In round one, participants stated how each item of the CARE statement should be changed and what additional items were needed. Revised and additional items from round one were put forward into a further round, where participants voted on the extent of their agreement with each item, using a nine-point Likert scale, as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group.ResultsIn round one, there was a 64% (38/59) response rate. Following adjustment of the guideline with the incorporation of recommended changes, round two commenced and there was an 83% (49/59) response rate. All but one of the items were approved by the participants, with Likert scores 7–9 awarded by >70% of respondents. The final guideline consists of a 14-item checklist.ConclusionWe present the SCARE Guideline, consisting of a 14-item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case reports

The SCARE Statement: Consensus-based surgical case report guidelines

Introduction: Case reports have been a long held tradition within the surgical literature. Reporting guidelines can improve transparency and reporting quality. However, recent consensus-based guidelines for case reports (CARE) are not surgically focused. Our objective was to develop surgical case report guidelines.Methods: The CARE statement was used as the basis for a Delphi consensus. The Delphi questionnaire was administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi methodology. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons and others with expertise in the reporting of case reports were invited to participate. In round one, participants stated how each item of the CARE statement should be changed and what additional items were needed. Revised and additional items from round one were put forward into a further round, where participants voted on the extent of their agreement with each item, using a nine-point Likert scale, as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group.Results: In round one, there was a 64% (38/59) response rate. Following adjustment of the guideline with the incorporation of recommended changes, round two commenced and there was an 83% (49/59) response rate. All but one of the items were approved by the participants, with Likert scores 7–9 awarded by >70% of respondents. The final guideline consists of a 14-item checklist.Conclusion: We present the SCARE Guideline, consisting of a 14-item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case reports.</p

Hydrogen Peroxide H2O2 Poisoning: Air in the Liver

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is an oxidizing agent with lots of domestic and industrial applications. Its accidental ingestion can cause toxicity by three different mechanisms: corrosive injury, oxygen gas formation, and lipid peroxidation. We report a case of a 77-year-old male, who presented with irritating cough and hoarseness following accidental ingestion of a 5–10% solution of H2O2. Computed tomography (CT) scans of the neck, chest, and abdomen showed extensive intrahepatic portal venous gas. An esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) revealed a moderate gastritis. The patient was treated with intravenous fluids and proton-pump inhibitor (PPI). A CT scan control at 12 h revealed complete disappearance of gas in the liver. One week after the admission, he started solid diet, and he was able to eat without difficulty or pain, and he was discharged home

Modern diagnosis of early esophageal cancer: From blood biomarkers to advanced endoscopy and artificial intelligence

none10noEsophageal cancer (EC) is the seventh most common cancer and the sixth cause of cancer death worldwide. Histologically, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) account for up to 90% and 20% of all ECs, respectively. Clinical symptoms such as dysphagia, odynophagia, and bolus impaction occur late in the natural history of the disease, and the diagnosis is often delayed. The prognosis of ESCC and EAC is poor in advanced stages, being survival rates less than 20% at five years. However, when the diagnosis is achieved early, curative treatment is possible, and survival exceeds 80%. For these reasons, mass screening strategies for EC are highly desirable, and several options are currently under investigation. Blood biomarkers offer an inexpensive, non-invasive screening strategy for cancers, and novel technologies have allowed the identification of candidate markers for EC. The esophagus is easily accessible via endoscopy, and endoscopic imaging represents the gold standard for cancer surveillance. However, lesion recognition during endoscopic procedures is hampered by interobserver variability. To fill this gap, artificial intelligence (AI) has recently been explored and provided encouraging results. In this review, we provide a summary of currently available options to achieve early diagnosis of EC, focusing on blood biomarkers, advanced endoscopy, and AI.noneVisaggi P.; Barberio B.; Ghisa M.; Ribolsi M.; Savarino V.; Fassan M.; Valmasoni M.; Marchi S.; de Bortoli N.; Savarino E.Visaggi, P.; Barberio, B.; Ghisa, M.; Ribolsi, M.; Savarino, V.; Fassan, M.; Valmasoni, M.; Marchi, S.; de Bortoli, N.; Savarino, E