Search

Background: Many surgical adverse events, such as bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), occur due to errors in visual perception and judgment. Artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially improve the quality and safety of surgery, such as through real-time intraoperative decision support. GoNoGoNet is a novel AI model capable of identifying safe ("Go") and dangerous ("No-Go") zones of dissection on surgical videos of LC. Yet, it is unknown how GoNoGoNet performs in comparison to expert surgeons. This study aims to evaluate the GoNoGoNet's ability to identify Go and No-Go zones compared to an external panel of expert surgeons., Methods: A panel of high-volume surgeons from the SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Task Force was recruited to draw free-hand annotations on frames of prospectively collected videos of LC to identify the Go and No-Go zones. Expert consensus on the location of Go and No-Go zones was established using Visual Concordance Test pixel agreement. Identification of Go and No-Go zones by GoNoGoNet was compared to expert-derived consensus using mean F1 Dice Score, and pixel accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV)., Results: A total of 47 frames from 25 LC videos, procured from 3 countries and 9 surgeons, were annotated simultaneously by an expert panel of 6 surgeons and GoNoGoNet. Mean (± standard deviation) F1 Dice score were 0.58 (0.22) and 0.80 (0.12) for Go and No-Go zones, respectively. Mean (± standard deviation) accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for the Go zones were 0.92 (0.05), 0.52 (0.24), 0.97 (0.03), 0.70 (0.21), and 0.94 (0.04) respectively. For No-Go zones, these metrics were 0.92 (0.05), 0.80 (0.17), 0.95 (0.04), 0.84 (0.13) and 0.95 (0.05), respectively., Conclusions: AI can be used to identify safe and dangerous zones of dissection within the surgical field, with high specificity/PPV for Go zones and high sensitivity/NPV for No-Go zones. Overall, model prediction was better for No-Go zones compared to Go zones. This technology may eventually be used to provide real-time guidance and minimize the risk of adverse events., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Coalition for Physician Accountability's work group on Medical Students in the class of 2021 made the recommendation in May of 2020 that the upcoming residency recruitment cycle be conducted virtually. This flexibility may have allowed applicants to apply and interview at programs with less regard to geography, knowing that travel costs of interviewing would not be a factor. Alternatively, applicants who interviewed virtually could choose to remain in a close proximity to their home institutions where they likely have a greater comfort level and familiarity with the community both personally and professionally. We examine the distribution of applicants matched at general surgery residency programs in 2021 to those in 2020 to see if there was a change in geographic variability., Design: Retrospective review of general surgery residents SETTING: United States general surgery residency programs PARTICIPANTS: 2153 PGY1 categorical general surgery residents who were interviewed virtually and PGY2 categorical general surgery residents who interviewed in-person, who also attended residency programs and medical schools located in the continental United States with publicly accessible residency websites containing necessary biographical information., Results: A total of 2153 residents were included; 1124 in their PGY1 and 1029 in their PGY2. Average distance from attended medical school to matched program (634.2 vs 662.5), percentage of matched programs within 500 miles of attended medical school (57.3 vs 55.7), average price of flight, when available, from attended medical school to matched program (222.8 vs 230.4), and percentage of attended medical schools with non-stop flight to matched program (42.9 vs 42.9) did not significantly differ between PGY1 and PGY2 residents., Conclusions: The decision to adopt virtual interviewing practices compared to previous in-person interviews did not significantly alter the geographical distribution of students' matched programs. The distance from medical school to the matched program, flight availability, and flight pricing remained comparable between residents interviewed in-person and residents interviewed virtually., (Copyright © 2022 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: National data show a trend favoring laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) over Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Published data demonstrating the differences in weight loss between the two procedures are mixed., Objective: In this retrospective study using clinical data from 2010 to 2020, we compared the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients undergoing either SG or RYGB to evaluate their long-term weight loss outcomes., Setting: University hospital in the United States., Methods: A total of 3329 patients were identified in our institutional Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement database using Current Procedural Terminology codes for either RYGB or SG. A general linear model was used for baseline characteristics. Logistic regression was used for factors favoring RYGB versus SG. A multivariable linear mixed model was used for weight-trajectory analysis. Cox regression was used for a cumulative hazard ratio of 10% weight regained from nadir., Results: Factors favoring RYGB were diagnoses of type 2 diabetes and gastroesophageal reflux disease, Hispanic ethnicity, and surgeon's preference. SG was favored among Black patients and smokers. RYGB was associated with more weight loss at all time points. The risk of weight regain was significantly higher after SG versus RYGB., Conclusions: The bariatric procedure choice is significantly influenced by race, medical history, and surgeon's experience. RYGB results in a significantly more durable weight loss compared with SG regardless of race or other stratification factors., (Copyright © 2022 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)