Search

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping ophthalmology by enhancing diagnostic precision and treatment strategies, particularly in retinal disorders and pediatric ophthalmology. This review examines AI's efficacy in diagnosing conditions such as diabetic retinopathy (DR) and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) using imaging techniques, such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) and fundus photography. AI also shows promise in pediatric care, aiding in the screening of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and the management of conditions, including pediatric cataracts and strabismus. However, the integration of AI in ophthalmology presents challenges, including ethical concerns regarding algorithm biases, privacy issues, and limitations in data set quality. Addressing these challenges is crucial to ensure AI's responsible and effective deployment in clinical settings. This review synthesizes current research, underscoring AI's transformative potential in ophthalmology while highlighting critical considerations for its ethical use and technological advancement., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Labib et al.)

Background:  The blood urea nitrogen to serum albumin ratio (BAR) is an emerging prognostic parameter of interest. The utility of BAR as a prognostic factor has not been analyzed in lung cancer patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy. We evaluated the ability of High BAR to predict worse outcomes after robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy (RAPL) for lung cancer., Methods:  We retrospectively analyzed 400 patients who underwent RAPL from September 2010 to March 2022 by one surgeon. Patients were stratified by Low BAR (<6.25 mg/g) and High BAR (≥6.25 mg/g). Patients' demographics, tumor characteristics, comorbidities, surgical complications, outcomes, and survival were collected and compared by High and Low BAR groups. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day mortality., Results:  Receiver operator curves (ROC) confirmed that 6.25 was an optimal threshold for estimating mortality based on Low and High BAR. There were no differences in surgical complications or outcomes between the Low and High BAR groups. The ability of BAR to predict 30-day mortality was evaluated with the area under the curve (AUC) analysis, which showed that higher BAR could not predict mortality (AUC=0.655; 95% CI, 0.435-0.875; p =0.166). Similarly, survival analysis revealed no difference in five-year overall survival between the Low and High BAR groups ( p =0.079)., Conclusion:  High BAR did not predict worse outcomes after RAPL for lung cancer in our study. Further studies are needed to better determine the prognostic ability of BAR in lower-risk populations., Competing Interests: The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section., (Copyright © 2023, Dumitriu Carcoana et al.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic presented patients with barriers to receiving healthcare. We sought to determine whether changes in healthcare access and practice during the pandemic affected perioperative outcomes after robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy (RAPL)., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 721 consecutive patients who underwent RAPL. With March 1 st , 2020, defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we grouped 638 patients as "PreCOVID-19" and 83 patients as "COVID-19-Era" based on surgical date. Demographics, comorbidities, tumor characteristics, intraoperative complications, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. Variables were compared utilizing Student's t-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and Chi-square (or Fisher's exact) test, with significance at p ≤ 0.05 . Multivariable generalized linear regression was used to investigate predictors of postoperative complication., Results: COVID-19-Era patients had significantly higher preoperative FEV1%, lower cumulative smoking history and higher incidences of preoperative atrial fibrillation, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and bleeding disorders compared to PreCOVID-19 patients. COVID-19-Era patients had lower intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), reduced incidence of new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF), but higher incidence of effusion or empyema postoperatively. Overall postoperative complication rates between the groups were similar. Older age, increased EBL, lower preoperative FEV1%, and preoperative COPD are all predictive of an increased risk for postoperative complication., Conclusions: COVID-19-Era patients having lower EBL and less new-onset POAF, despite greater incidences of multiple preoperative comorbidities, demonstrates that RAPL is safe during the COVID-19 era. Risk factors for development of postoperative effusion should be determined to minimize risk of empyema in COVID-19-Era patients. Age, preoperative FEV1%, COPD, and EBL should all be considered when planning for complication risk., Competing Interests: E.M.T. and J.P.F. have had financial relationships with Intuitive Surgical, Inc., in the form of honoraria received as robotic thoracic surgery observation sites and proctors. None of the other authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: The treatment of postoperative pain is a challenge after posterior spinal fusions. Pain management using predominantly opioids is often associated with multiple adverse effects, while multimodal postoperative analgesia may provide adequate pain relief with fewer opioid side effects., Questions/purposes: The purpose of this review is to determine whether addition of 150 mg pregabalin daily would reduce narcotic requirements and improve outcomes after posterior lumbar fusion (PLF)., Methods: The method used is a randomized, controlled trial of elective PLF patients who received pregabalin or placebo. With institutional review board (IRB) approval, 86 patients undergoing elective posterior lumbar fusion, ASA I-III, were randomized to receive either a placebo or pregabalin after obtaining written informed consent. Both arms, i.e., placebo and pregabalin, consisted of 43 patients each.The 86 patients for elective PLF were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg of pregabalin 1 h before surgery and then 150 mg daily, or a placebo tablet. All patients received a similar general anesthetic and in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), started on intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) of hydromorphone (0.2 mg/ml). Postoperative pain was assessed daily until discharge using a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) at rest and with physical therapy (PT). Patients were also assessed twice daily for level of sedation and nausea and/or vomiting and expected PT milestones. All narcotics (IV, oral) were documented., Results: Demographics and operative time between groups were similar. PCA hydromorphone administration and oral narcotic intake were not statistically different between the two groups. However, an increased incidence of nausea and vomiting in the placebo group reached statistical significance ( p  < 0.05). In addition, there was no statistical difference between groups with respect to achieving PT milestones and hospital discharge day., Conclusion: After PLF, patients receiving pregabalin 150 mg/day did not have reduced IV narcotic usage, improved PT milestones, or reduced length of hospital stay. We were unable to demonstrate an analgesic advantage to prescribing pregabalin to patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusions., Competing Interests: Compliance with Ethical StandardsMichael K. Urban, MD, PhD; Kristy M. Labib, MD; Shane C. Reid, MBS, BA; Amanda K. Goon, BA; and Valeria Rotundo have declared that they have no conflict of interest. Frank P. Cammisa Jr MD reports royalties for patent with NuVasive. Federico P. Girardi, MD reports royalties paid for patents with DePuy Spine, LANX, Inc., NuVasive, and Ortho Development Corp., outside the work.All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5).Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.