Bullet emboli can prove to be a clinical challenge. Adjuncts such as X-ray, computed tomography, transthoracic, and/or transesophageal echocardiography help establish the emboli location. While observation in the asymptomatic patient is reasonable in some circumstances, most patients undergo removal. Removal of bullet cardiac emboli is safe with the availability of modern techniques.
Introduction Since inception of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in 1999, there has been an exponential rise in RAS in both number and complexity of surgical cases performed. The majority of these cases are gynecologic surgery in nature, with only a quarter of them labeled as general surgery. The purpose of this study is to determine if RAS in the Department of Defense (DoD) mirrors these trends. Methods A total of 6,204 RAS cases from across the DoD were reviewed between 01 January 2015 and 30 September 2017 from every Military Treatment Facility (MTF) that employs a robotic surgical device (various models of the da Vinci robotic surgical system by Intuitive Surgical). Specialty, number, and surgeon were recorded for each case. These end points were also examined for trends overtime and compared to similar civilian data. Results The number of MTFs performing robotic surgery and the number of cases performed increased significantly. An average of 373 cases per quarter-year were performed in 2015, 647 in 2016, and 708 in 2017. The number of RAS cases increased by about 10% every quarter-year during this time period. RAS was most commonly performed by general surgery in 10 of the 14 MTFs examined. Conclusions MTFs implemented RAS much later than the civilian world. However, since its implementation, the frequency of RAS use has increased at a faster rate in the DoD than in the civilian world. Possible reasons for this are a younger pool of surgeons in the military and less demands on cost-effective productivity, allowing these younger surgeons to focus on emerging technology rather than maximizing surgical cost efficiency. General surgery constitutes the majority of RAS cases in the DoD. It is unclear why this difference from the civilian world exists.
113 Background: Over the past decade, genomic testing has become standard of care for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These tests qualify patients for additional anti-cancer therapies and should be performed in all patients. Small scale studies at the institutional level have revealed that there may be disparities in genomic testing in NSCLC and not all patients may have similar access to care. In this study, we use the IBM Explorys Electronic Health Record (EHR) database to conduct a nationwide retrospective, observational study to understand how gender, race, insurance type, and spoken language impacts the rate of genomic testing in metastatic NSCLC patients. Methods: From Jan 1st, 2015 to Dec 31st, 2020, the IBM Explorys EHR database comprised 128,119 lung cancer patients using the SNOMED-CT concept of Primary Malignant Neoplasm of the Lung (CID 93880001). As structured staging information was not available, metastatic NSCLC patients were imputed by removing patients who received thoracic surgeries (presumably stage I or II) and those who received radiation therapy (presumably stage III). Following imputation, 120,470 patients with metastatic NSCLC were queried for testing for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and/or RET. Odds ratios and chi-squared tests were computed for gender, race, insurance type, and spoken language comparing patients that received genomics testing to those who did not. Results: Genomic testing was taken significantly more by male patients (OR: 1.35, p<0.0001), and by Caucasian patients (OR: 1.39, p<0.0001). Compared to the public insurance plans, the genomic testing was significantly more in patients with private insurance plans (OR: 2.48, p<0.0001) and self-pay patients (OR: 2.84, p<0.0001). Patients speaking English as their first language significantly less likely took genomic testing (OR: 0.81, p<0.05). Conclusions: This study aims to identify gaps in health disparities in gender, race/ethnicity, and insurance type for genomic testing that should be standard practice. Future investigation and attention to this issue appears necessary to begin moving from documenting disparities, to understanding them, and ultimately to reducing them.[Table: see text]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.