Background: Endovascular repair of blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injuries (BTAI) is common at most trauma centres, with excellent results. However, little is known regarding which injuries do not require intervention. We reviewed the natural history of untreated patients with minimal aortic injury (MAI) at our centre. Methods:We conducted a retrospective database review to identify all patients with a BTAI between October 2008 and March 2010. The cohort comprised patients initially untreated because of the lesser degree of injury of an MAI. We reviewed initial and follow-up computed tomography (CT) scans and clinical information. Results:We identified 69 patients with a BTAI during the study period; 10 were initially untreated and were included in this study. Degree of injury included intimal flaps (n = 7, 70%), pseudoaneurysms with minimal hematoma (n = 2, 20%) and circumferential intimal tear (n = 1, 10%). Six (60%) patients were male, and the median age was 40 years. Duration of clinical follow-up ranged from 1 month to 6 years (median 2 mo) after discharge, whereas CT radiologic follow-up ranged from 1 week to 6 years (median 6 wk). Seven (70%) patients had complete resolution or stabilization of their MAI, 1 (10%) with circumferential intimal tear showed extension of the injury at 8 weeks postinjury and underwent successful repair, and 2 (20%) were lost to follow-up.Conclusion: There appears to be a subset of patients with BTAI who require no surgical intervention. This includes those with limited intimal flaps, which often resolve. Radiologic surveillance is mandatory to ensure MAI resolution and identify any progression that might prompt repair.Contexte : La plupart des centres de traumatologie ont souvent recours à la répara-tion endovasculaire des traumatismes fermés de l'aorte thoracique (TFAT), et cette dernière donne d'excellents résultats. Toutefois, on en connaît peu sur le type de blessures qui ne requièrent pas d'intervention. Nous avons passé en revue l'histoire naturelle des patients qui ont été vus dans notre centre pour un traumatisme léger de l'aorte, mais qui n'ont pas été traités.

LLDP is a feasible and safe approach for distal lesions of the pancreatic tail, associated with shorter operative time and decreased blood loss compared to traditional MLDP. Potential of decreased conversion rate and length of stay exists. These hypotheses need to be confirmed in larger prospective studies.

No abstract

Background: When a journal receives a duplicate publication, the ability to identify the submitted work as previously published, and reject it, is an assay to publication ethics best practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate how three different types of journals, namely open access (OA) journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals, responded to receiving a previously published manuscript for review. Methods: We performed a quasi-experimental study in which we submitted a previously published article to a random sample of 602 biomedical journals, roughly 200 journals from each journal type sampled: OA journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals. Three hundred and three journals received a Word version in manuscript format, while 299 journals received the formatted publisher's PDF version of the published article. We then recorded responses to the submission received after approximately 1 month. Responses were reviewed, extracted, and coded in duplicate. Our primary outcome was the rate of rejection of the two types of submitted articles (PDF vs Word) within our three journal types. Results: We received correspondence back from 308 (51.1%) journals within our study timeline (32 days); (N = 46 predatory journals, N = 127 OA journals, N = 135 subscription-based journals). Of the journals that responded, 153 received the Word version of the paper, while 155 received the PDF version. Four journals (1.3%) accepted our paper, 291 (94.5%) journals rejected the paper, and 13 (4.2%) requested a revision. A chi-square test looking at journal type, and submission type, was significant (χ 2 (4) = 23.50, p < 0.001). All four responses to accept our article came from presumed predatory journals, 3 of which received the Word format and 1 that received the PDF format. Less than half of journals that rejected our submissions did so because they identified ethical issues such as plagiarism with the manuscript (133 (45.7%)).