Robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of perioperative outcomes from a single institution

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and standard laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in a teaching hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Queen Mary and Tung Wah hospitals, Hong Kong. PATIENTS: The first 10 consecutive patients who had robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumours between January 2008 and September 2009 with prospective data collection were evaluated. Their outcomes were compared with the last 10 consecutive patients in our database, who had standard laparoscopic partial nephrectomy between November 2004 and October 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographics, tumour characteristics, perioperative outcomes, renal function, and pathological outcomes. RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups with regard to age (63 vs 56 years; P=0.313) and tumour size (2.7 vs 2.8 cm; P=0.895). No significant difference was found between the two groups with respect to the operating room time (376 vs 361 min; P=0.722), estimated blood loss (329 vs 328 mL; P=0.994), and length of hospital stay (7 vs 14 days; P=0.213). A statistically significant shorter mean warm ischaemic time for the robot-assisted group was noted (31 vs 40 minutes; P=0.032). Respective renal functional outcomes as shown by the difference between day 0 and day 60 serum creatinine levels were comparable (+10 vs +7 mmol/L; P=0.605). In both groups, there were no intra-operative complications or instances of surgical margin tumour involvement. Three patients endured postoperative complications in the standard laparoscopic group (a perinephric haematoma, urine leakage, and lymph leakage) compared with one in the robot-assisted group (a perinephric haematoma). These complications all resolved with conservative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is a technically feasible alternative to standard laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, and provides comparable results. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy appears to offer the advantage of decreased warm ischaemic time. Longer follow-up is required to assess renal function and oncological outcomes. Further experience and randomised trials are necessary to compare robot-assisted with standard laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.published_or_final_versio

The Role of Palliative Surgery for Malignant Bowel Obstruction and Perforation in Advanced Microsatellite Instability-High Colorectal Carcinoma in the Era of Immunotherapy: Case Report.

The role of palliative surgery in the management of acute complications in patients with disseminated malignancy remains controversial given the complexity of assessing acute surgical risk and long-term oncologic outcome. With the emergence of checkpoint blockade immunotherapy, there appears to be an increasing role for historically palliative procedures as a bridge to systemic immunotherapy. This is especially evident in advanced microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) colorectal cancer where malignant obstruction and fistula formation are more common and where immunotherapy with checkpoint blockade (anti-PD-1/PD-L1, anti-CTLA-4) has a high response rate with potential for favorable oncologic outcomes. We present a series of three patients with MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer complicated by malignant bowel obstruction and fistula formation, who having progressed on standard chemotherapy, underwent palliative intervention as a bridge to immune checkpoint blockade with durable and clinically meaningful anti-cancer responses. These cases highlight the need to re-evaluate the role of historically palliative operations in the setting of disease progression for immunotherapy-responsive tumors

Public preferences on written informed consent for low-risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain

Aims: Pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) collect data that have the potential to improve medical care significantly. However, these trials may be undermined by the requirement to obtain written informed consent, which can decrease accrual and increase selection bias. Recent data suggest that the majority of the US public endorses written consent for low-risk pRCTs. The present study was designed to assess whether this view is specific to the US. Methods: The study took the form of a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent vs. verbal consent or general notification for two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and hypothetical recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent vs. the alternatives. Results: A total of 2008 adults sampled from a probability-based online panel responded to the web-based survey conducted in May 2016 (response rate: 61%). Overall, 77% of respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, the alternative of general notification received significantly more support (28.7–37.1%) than the alternative of verbal consent (12.7–14.0%) (P = 0.001). Forty per cent of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent. Conclusions: The results suggested that, rather than attempting to waive written consent, current pRCTs should focus on developing ways to implement written consent that provide sufficient information without undermining recruitment or increasing selection bias. The finding that around 40% of respondents endorsed general notification over written consent raises the possibility that, with educational efforts, the majority of Spaniards might accept general notification for low-risk pRCTsThis work was supported in part by the Victor Grifols i Lucas Foundation (Barcelona, Spain:http://www.fundaciogrifols.org/en/web/fundacio/home). The present work was funded in part by intramural research funds of the US NIH Clinical Cente

Deploying Trustworthy AI in the Courtroom: Lessons from Examining Algorithm Bias in Redistricting AI

Deploying trustworthy AI is an increasingly pressing and common concern. In a court of law, the challenges are exacerbated by the confluence of a general lack of expertise in the judiciary and the rapid speed of technological advancement. We discuss the obstacles to trustworthy AI in the courtroom through a discussion that focuses on the legal landscape surrounding electoral redistricting. We focus on two particular issues, data bias and a lack of domain knowledge, and discuss how they may lead to problematic legal decisions. We conclude with a discussion of the separate but complementary roles of technology and human deliberation. We emphasize that political fairness is a philosophical and political concept that must be conceived of through human consensus building, a process that is distinct from algorithm development