Search

Objective: In Australia, there is little evidence exploring why higher degrees by research (HDRs) are undertaken by surgeons. This study aims to describe the attitudes and experiences of surgical trainees and surgeons towards HDRs. Methods: A 23-question cross-sectional survey of surgical trainees and consultant surgeons from three Australian public hospitals was undertaken between August and December 2022. Data were analysed according to stage of career and HDR status and assessed using chi-squared test, with P < 0.05 considered significant. Results: Out of 270 participants, 72 (27%) completed the survey including 30 (42%) trainees and 42 (58%) consultants. Overall, 43 (60%) participants had completed or were undertaking a HDR, which was similar between trainees (n = 18) and consultants (N = 25; P = 0.968). A HDR was associated with more publications (P < 0.5). Respondents with a HDR were more likely to have a salaried academic position (50%) than those without (15%). There was no significant difference in academic appointments based on HDR attainment (P = 0.192). For surgical trainees, 93% rated the strengthening of resumes as the primary driver, compared with only 60% of consultants. For consultants, academic career aspirations and research interests were ranked the highest at 64% equally. Lack of time and competing nature of surgical training were equally ranked among all as the key barriers to completing a HDR. Conclusions: These results provide insight into the academic pursuits of surgeons with an understanding of the role HDRs play, including the different drivers for Masters and Doctorates. This is important for supporting future surgeons who seek to pursue research. What is known about the topic? The value of research is well-recognised as a crucial part of the surgical training pathway. Despite this, minimal contemporary evidence exists which explores the impact of higher degrees by research (HDR) on academic career pathways in the Australian context. What does this paper add? Contemporary evidence was obtained to understand why Australian surgeons undertake HDRs and how their completion impacts the surgical career pathway. What are the implications for practitioners? By understanding the role of HDRs in the surgical landscape, practitioners can ensure beneficial support for future academic surgeons is in place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent developments in our understanding of molecular genetics have transformed screening and diagnostic practices for Lynch syndrome. The current standard involves universal tumour analysis of resected colorectal cancer (and ideally polypectomy) specimens using immunohistochemistry and molecular techniques. Patients with abnormal immunohistochemical findings are subsequently referred for definitive mutational testing. This review relates the molecular pathogenesis of Lynch syndrome to current immunohistochemistry‐based screening strategies and discusses the interpretation and clinical implications of screening results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of an old man diagnosed with colocolic intussusception which was caused by colonic lipoma. The man had recent history of postprandial abdominal pain on his right side which was linked with diarrhoea as well as accidental weight loss. Computed tomography was done which found colocolic intussusception.

Aim Method Results Conclusion Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots such as Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer‐4 (ChatGPT‐4) have made significant strides in generating human‐like responses. Trained on an extensive corpus of medical literature, ChatGPT‐4 has the potential to augment patient education materials. These chatbots may be beneficial to populations considering a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the accuracy and quality of patient education materials are crucial for informed decision‐making. Given workforce demands impacting holistic care, AI chatbots can bridge gaps in CRC information, reaching wider demographics and crossing language barriers. However, rigorous evaluation is essential to ensure accuracy, quality and readability. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the efficacy, quality and readability of answers generated by ChatGPT‐4 on CRC, utilizing patient‐style question prompts.To evaluate ChatGPT‐4, eight CRC‐related questions were derived using peer‐reviewed literature and Google Trends. Eight colorectal surgeons evaluated AI responses for accuracy, safety, appropriateness, actionability and effectiveness. Quality was assessed using validated tools: the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT‐AI), modified DISCERN (DISCERN‐AI) and Global Quality Score (GQS). A number of readability assessments were measured including Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and the Gunning Fog Index (GFI).The responses were generally accurate (median 4.00), safe (4.25), appropriate (4.00), actionable (4.00) and effective (4.00). Quality assessments rated PEMAT‐AI as ‘very good’ (71.43), DISCERN‐AI as ‘fair’ (12.00) and GQS as ‘high’ (4.00). Readability scores indicated difficulty (FRE 47.00, GFI 12.40), suggesting a higher educational level was required.This study concludes that ChatGPT‐4 is capable of providing safe but nonspecific medical information, suggesting its potential as a patient education aid. However, enhancements in readability through contextual prompting and fine‐tuning techniques are required before considering implementation into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents case studies of a 60-year-old male and 72-year-old male who were diagnosed with perforated diverticulitis. It mentions that emergency surgery for perforated diverticulitis is associated with higher rates of infectious and non-infectious complications and increased stoma rates, and patients are more likely to have an open surgery rather than a minimally invasive surgery.

This article presents a letter to the editor in response to the article "Anal abscesses and fistulas," by M. J. F. X. Rickard in the January/February 2005 issue.

The article lists several referees who reviewed articles for the periodical between October 1, 2016 and October 1, 2017 which includes Richard Boyle, Michael Crawford, and Jane Fox.