Artificial intelligence surgery: how do we get to autonomous actions in surgery?

Most surgeons are skeptical as to the feasibility of autonomous actions in surgery. Interestingly, many examples of autonomous actions already exist and have been around for years. Since the beginning of this millennium, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) has grown exponentially with the development of machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), computer vision (CV) and natural language processing (NLP). All of these facets of AI will be fundamental to the development of more autonomous actions in surgery, unfortunately, only a limited number of surgeons have or seek expertise in this rapidly evolving field. As opposed to AI in medicine, AI surgery (AIS) involves autonomous movements. Fortuitously, as the field of robotics in surgery has improved, more surgeons are becoming interested in technology and the potential of autonomous actions in procedures such as interventional radiology, endoscopy and surgery. The lack of haptics, or the sensation of touch, has hindered the wider adoption of robotics by many surgeons; however, now that the true potential of robotics can be comprehended, the embracing of AI by the surgical community is more important than ever before. Although current complete surgical systems are mainly only examples of tele-manipulation, for surgeons to get to more autonomously functioning robots, haptics is perhaps not the most important aspect. If the goal is for robots to ultimately become more and more independent, perhaps research should not focus on the concept of haptics as it is perceived by humans, and the focus should be on haptics as it is perceived by robots/computers. This article will discuss aspects of ML, DL, CV and NLP as they pertain to the modern practice of surgery, with a focus on current AI issues and advances that will enable us to get to more autonomous actions in surgery. Ultimately, there may be a paradigm shift that needs to occur in the surgical community as more surgeons with expertise in AI may be needed to fully unlock the potential of AIS in a safe, efficacious and timely manner

Synchronous primary colorectal and liver metastasis: impact of operative approach on clinical outcomes and hospital charges

AbstractObjectivesThe management of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) remains controversial. The present study was conducted in order to assess the clinical and economic impacts of managing synchronous CLM with a staged versus a simultaneous surgery approach.MethodsA total of 224 patients treated for synchronous CLM during 1990–2012 were identified in the Johns Hopkins Hospital liver database. Data on clinicopathological features, perioperative outcomes and total hospital charges (inflation-adjusted) were collected and analysed.ResultsOverall, 113 (50.4%) patients underwent staged surgery and 111 (49.6%) were submitted to a simultaneous CRC and liver operation. At surgery, liver-directed therapy included hepatectomy (75.0%) or combined resection and ablation (25.0%). Perioperative morbidity (30.0%) and mortality (1.3%) did not differ between groups (both P > 0.05). Median total length of hospitalization was longer in the staged (13 days) than the simultaneous (7 days) surgery group (P < 0.001). Median total hospital charges were higher among patients undergoing staged surgery (US$61 938) than among those undergoing a simultaneous operation (US$34 114) (P < 0.01). Median (simultaneous, 32.4 months versus staged, 39.6 months; P = 0.65) and 5-year (simultaneous, 27% versus staged, 29%; P = 0.60) overall survival were similar between groups.ConclusionsPatients with synchronous CLM managed with either simultaneous or staged surgery have comparable perioperative and longterm outcomes. However, patients treated with simultaneous surgery spent an average of 6 days fewer in hospital, resulting in a reduction of median hospital charges of US$27 824 (55.1%). When appropriate and technically feasible, the simultaneous surgery approach to synchronous CLM should be preferred

Failure to rescue as a source of variation in hospital mortality after rectal surgery: The Italian experience

INTRODUCTION: Failure to rescue (FTR) patients from postoperative complications could contribute to the variability in surgical mortality seen among hospitals with different volumes. We sought to examine the impact of complications and FTR on mortality following rectal surgery. METHODS: The National Italian Hospital Discharge Dataset allowed to identify 75,280 patients who underwent rectal surgery between 2002 and 2014. Hospital volume was stratified into tertiles. Rates of major complications, FTR from complications and mortality following rectal surgery were compared. RESULTS: During the study period, both the incidence of complications (2002, 23.7% versus 2014, 21.2%), and FTR decreased overtime (2002, 6.9% versus 2014, 3.8%) (both P\u202f<\u202f0.001). The complication rate was 24.4% in low-, 21.6% in intermediate- and 20.4% in high-volume hospitals (P\u202f<\u202f0.001). Complications were less common in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open cases (18.2% versus 23.2%; P\u202f<\u202f0.001). The most frequent complications included prolonged ileus or small bowel obstruction (5.3%), and anemia requiring blood transfusions (5.3%). The rate of FTR was 5.5%, 5.6% and 3.7% for low-, intermediate- and high-volume hospitals, respectively (P\u202f<\u202f0.001). FTR after MIS was 2.6% vs. 5.5% after open surgery (P\u202f<\u202f0.001). After accounting for patient and hospital characteristics, patients treated at low-volume hospitals were 23% more likely to die after a complication, compared to patients at high-volume hospitals (OR 1.23, 95%CI 1.13-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital volume is the strongest predictor of complication and FTR. The reduction in mortality in high-volume hospitals could be determined by the better ability to rescue patients. These findings support the centralization policy of rectal cancer treatment

The Italian version of the LARS score: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. An Italian Society of Surgical Oncology-Colorectal Cancer Network (SICO-CCN) collaborative study

Purpose: The LARS score is an internationally well-accepted questionnaire to assess low anterior resection syndrome, but currently there is no formally validated Italian version. The purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of the Italian version among Italian patients submitted to sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer. Methods: The English version of the LARS score was translated into Italian following the forward-and-back translation process. A total of 147 patients filled out our version. Among them, 40 patients answered the questionnaire twice for the test-retest reliability phase. The validity of the LARS score was tested using convergent and discriminant validity indicators by correlating the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires. The LARS score capability to differentiate groups of patients with different demographic or clinical features was also assessed. Results: The test-retest reliability was excellent in 87.5% of patients, remained in the same LARS category in both tests. The convergent validity phase showed a relevant relationship of the LARS score with the EORTC domains, which was significant for 7 of 15 EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales, and for 14 of 29 EORTC QLQ-CR29 subscales. The LARS score was able to discriminate patients who received radiotherapy (p = 0.0026), TME vs. PME (p = 0.0060), tumour site at &lt; 10 cm from the anal verge (p = 0.0030) and history of protective stoma (p &lt; 0.0001). Conclusion: The Italian version of the LARS score is a valid and reliable tool for measuring LARS in Italian patients after SSS for rectal cancer

Gastrointestinal Coronavirus disease 2019: epidemiology, clinical features, pathogenesis, prevention, and management

Introduction: The new Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019. Some authors reported evidences that patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection could have a direct involvement of the gastrointestinal tract, and in symptomatic cases, gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain) could be very common. Area covered: In this article, we reviewed current published data of the gastrointestinal aspects involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection, including prevalence and incidence of specific symptoms, presumptive biological mechanism of GI infection, prognosis, clinical management and public health related concerns on the possible risk of oral-fecal transmission. Expert opinion: Different clues point to a direct virus infection and replication in mucosal cells of the gastrointestinal tract. In vitro studies showed that SARS-CoV-2 could enters into the gastrointestinal epithelial cells by the Angiotensin-Converting enzyme 2 membrane receptor. These findings, coupled with identification of viral RNA found in stools of patients, clearly suggest that a direct involvement of gastrointestinal tract is very likely. This can justify most of the gastrointestinal symptoms but also suggest a risk for an oral fecal route for transmission, additionally or alternatively to the main respiratory route

Development and Validation of a New Prognostic System for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Prognostic assessment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial. Using the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) database as a training set, we sought to develop and validate a new prognostic system for patients with HCC. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Prospective collected databases from Italy (training cohort, n = 3,628; internal validation cohort, n = 1,555) and Taiwan (external validation cohort, n = 2,651) were used to develop the ITA.LI.CA prognostic system. We first defined ITA.LI.CA stages (0, A, B1, B2, B3, C) using only tumor characteristics (largest tumor diameter, number of nodules, intra- and extrahepatic macroscopic vascular invasion, extrahepatic metastases). A parametric multivariable survival model was then used to calculate the relative prognostic value of ITA.LI.CA tumor stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, Child-Pugh score (CPS), and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) in predicting individual survival. Based on the model results, an ITA.LI.CA integrated prognostic score (from 0 to 13 points) was constructed, and its prognostic power compared with that of other integrated systems (BCLC, HKLC, MESIAH, CLIP, JIS). Median follow-up was 58 mo for Italian patients (interquartile range, 26-106 mo) and 39 mo for Taiwanese patients (interquartile range, 12-61 mo). The ITA.LI.CA integrated prognostic score showed optimal discrimination and calibration abilities in Italian patients. Observed median survival in the training and internal validation sets was 57 and 61 mo, respectively, in quartile 1 (ITA.LI.CA score 64 1), 43 and 38 mo in quartile 2 (ITA.LI.CA score 2-3), 23 and 23 mo in quartile 3 (ITA.LI.CA score 4-5), and 9 and 8 mo in quartile 4 (ITA.LI.CA score &gt; 5). Observed and predicted median survival in the training and internal validation sets largely coincided. Although observed and predicted survival estimations were significantly lower (log-rank test, p &lt; 0.001) in Italian than in Taiwanese patients, the ITA.LI.CA score maintained very high discrimination and calibration features also in the external validation cohort. The concordance index (C index) of the ITA.LI.CA score in the internal and external validation cohorts was 0.71 and 0.78, respectively. The ITA.LI.CA score's prognostic ability was significantly better (p &lt; 0.001) than that of BCLC stage (respective C indexes of 0.64 and 0.73), CLIP score (0.68 and 0.75), JIS stage (0.67 and 0.70), MESIAH score (0.69 and 0.77), and HKLC stage (0.68 and 0.75). The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature and the intrinsically significant differences between the Taiwanese and Italian groups. CONCLUSIONS: The ITA.LI.CA prognostic system includes both a tumor staging-stratifying patients with HCC into six main stages (0, A, B1, B2, B3, and C)-and a prognostic score-integrating ITA.LI.CA tumor staging, CPS, ECOG performance status, and AFP. The ITA.LI.CA prognostic system shows a strong ability to predict individual survival in European and Asian populations

The impact of anastomotic leak on long-term oncological outcomes after low anterior resection for mid-low rectal cancer: extended follow-up of a randomised controlled trial

The impact of anastomotic leaks (AL) on oncological outcomes after low anterior resection for mid-low rectal cancer is still debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local and distant recurrence in patients with AL following low anterior resection

Development and Validation of a New Prognostic System for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background: Prognostic assessment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial. Using the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) database as a training set, we sought to develop and validate a new prognostic system for patients with HCC. Methods and Findings: Prospective collected databases from Italy (training cohort, n = 3,628; internal validation cohort, n = 1,555) and Taiwan (external validation cohort, n = 2,651) were used to develop the ITA.LI.CA prognostic system. We first defined ITA.LI.CA stages (0, A, B1, B2, B3, C) using only tumor characteristics (largest tumor diameter, number of nodules, intra- and extrahepatic macroscopic vascular invasion, extrahepatic metastases). A parametric multivariable survival model was then used to calculate the relative prognostic value of ITA.LI.CA tumor stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, Child–Pugh score (CPS), and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) in predicting individual survival. Based on the model results, an ITA.LI.CA integrated prognostic score (from 0 to 13 points) was constructed, and its prognostic power compared with that of other integrated systems (BCLC, HKLC, MESIAH, CLIP, JIS). Median follow-up was 58 mo for Italian patients (interquartile range, 26–106 mo) and 39 mo for Taiwanese patients (interquartile range, 12–61 mo). The ITA.LI.CA integrated prognostic score showed optimal discrimination and calibration abilities in Italian patients. Observed median survival in the training and internal validation sets was 57 and 61 mo, respectively, in quartile 1 (ITA.LI.CA score ≤ 1), 43 and 38 mo in quartile 2 (ITA.LI.CA score 2–3), 23 and 23 mo in quartile 3 (ITA.LI.CA score 4–5), and 9 and 8 mo in quartile 4 (ITA.LI.CA score > 5). Observed and predicted median survival in the training and internal validation sets largely coincided. Although observed and predicted survival estimations were significantly lower (log-rank test, p < 0.001) in Italian than in Taiwanese patients, the ITA.LI.CA score maintained very high discrimination and calibration features also in the external validation cohort. The concordance index (C index) of the ITA.LI.CA score in the internal and external validation cohorts was 0.71 and 0.78, respectively. The ITA.LI.CA score’s prognostic ability was significantly better (p < 0.001) than that of BCLC stage (respective C indexes of 0.64 and 0.73), CLIP score (0.68 and 0.75), JIS stage (0.67 and 0.70), MESIAH score (0.69 and 0.77), and HKLC stage (0.68 and 0.75). The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature and the intrinsically significant differences between the Taiwanese and Italian groups. Conclusions: The ITA.LI.CA prognostic system includes both a tumor staging—stratifying patients with HCC into six main stages (0, A, B1, B2, B3, and C)—and a prognostic score—integrating ITA.LI.CA tumor staging, CPS, ECOG performance status, and AFP. The ITA.LI.CA prognostic system shows a strong ability to predict individual survival in European and Asian populations

Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy

IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced colorectal cancers at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all 17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period), in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was 30 days from surgery. EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery, palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery, and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster variable. RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142 (56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P &lt; .001), and stenotic lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for these patients