Background: Neuroanatomy is the core basis for neurosurgical excellence. The quantity of accessible neuroanatomy resources has witnessed exponential growth in recent years. Accumulating a list of popular sources and getting them ranked by neurosurgeons was the motivation behind this investigation. Methods: A list of neuroanatomy resources was compiled using Google search wherein multiple sets of variable combinations of keywords were used. A three-section, eleven-item questionnaire was designed by two neurosurgeons and revised by a third independent reviewer. Neurosurgeons from different parts of the world were invited to participate. The participants were asked to rank the neuroanatomy textbook and non-book online source that they would recommend to neurosurgeons and the features that make a textbook appealing to them. Results: A total of 250 neurosurgeons at different levels of training responded to our questionnaire. Overall, “Rhoton’s Cranial Anatomy and Surgical Approach: Albert L. Rhoton Jr., Doctor of Medicine” was the most commonly chosen textbook that the neurosurgeons would use to revise neuroanatomy (86.0%; n = 215), recommend for residents (80.8%; n = 202) and recommend for certified surgeons (Continuing Medical Education (59.8%; n = 150), where applicable. “Illustrations” was rated as the most important neuroanatomy textbook quality by 53% (n = 134). “Rhoton collection” was the most popular online source (65.7%; n = 164.25). Chi-square tests showed no association between years of experience and the textbooks neurosurgeons recommended. Conclusion: Based on our study Rhoton’s book and his online collection are the leading neuroanatomy resources, recommended by neurosurgeons for neurosurgeons worldwide. The other selected resources can be implemented as a complementary part of a comprehensive neuroanatomy teaching curriculum. Knowing the relevance of these assets from a neurosurgeon’s perspective is valuable in directing future educational plan updates and recommendations.

Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk.

Background: Research is a central component of neurosurgical training and practice and is increasingly viewed as a quintessential indicator of academic productivity. In this study, we focus on identifying the current status and challenges of neurosurgical research in Iraq. Methods: An online PubMed Medline database search was conducted to identify all articles published by Iraq-based neurosurgeons between 2003 and 2020. Information was extracted in relation to the following parameters: authors, year of publication, author’s affiliation, author’s specialty, article type, article citation, journal name, journal impact factor, and topic. This data were then tabulated and analyzed. Results: Between 2003 and 2021, a total of 52 PubMed indexed papers were published from Iraq. All publications have been clustered in the period of 2012–2020. From 2012 to 2016, only four papers were published, one per year. The number of publications increased from 2017 to 2021, with an average of 12 publications per year. The most common article type was “case reports” (n = 14). Neurotrauma (n = 10) and vascular neurosurgery (n = 10) were the two most common topics. Most of the studies came from the city of Bagdad (n = 46), with just nine studies coming from peripheral governorates. The Neurosurgery Teaching Hospital in Bagdad was the neurosurgery center with the highest research output (n = 38). Conclusion: The number of publications per year has been showing a, relatively, promising trend since 2012. However, to promote sustained growth in academic productivity, a strategic plan that acknowledges the political, financial, and health-system-related challenges are urgently needed.