Introduction The aim of this study was to develop a reliable objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) score for linear-stapled, hand-sewn closure of enterotomy intestinal anastomoses (A-OSATS). Materials and methods The Delphi methodology was used to create a traditional and weighted A-OSATS score highlighting the more important steps for patient outcomes according to an international expert consensus. Minimally invasive novices, intermediates, and experts were asked to perform a minimally invasive linear-stapled intestinal anastomosis with hand-sewn closure of the enterotomy in a live animal model either laparoscopically or robot-assisted. Video recordings were scored by two blinded raters assessing intrarater and interrater reliability and discriminative abilities between novices (n = 8), intermediates (n = 24), and experts (n = 8). Results The Delphi process included 18 international experts and was successfully completed after 4 rounds. A total of 4 relevant main steps as well as 15 substeps were identified and a definition of each substep was provided. A maximum of 75 points could be reached in the unweighted A-OSATS score and 170 points in the weighted A-OSATS score respectively. A total of 41 anastomoses were evaluated. Excellent intrarater (r = 0.807–0.988, p < 0.001) and interrater (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.923–0.924, p < 0.001) reliability was demonstrated. Both versions of the A-OSATS correlated well with the general OSATS and discriminated between novices, intermediates, and experts defined by their OSATS global rating scale. Conclusion With the weighted and unweighted A-OSATS score, we propose a new reliable standard to assess the creation of minimally invasive linear-stapled, hand-sewn anastomoses based on an international expert consensus. Validity evidence in live animal models is provided in this study. Future research should focus on assessing whether the weighted A-OSATS exceeds the predictive capabilities of patient outcomes of the unweighted A-OSATS and provide further validity evidence on using the score on different anastomotic techniques in humans.
Purpose Advances in therapy of metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer (mCRPC) resulted in more therapeutic options and led to a higher need of predictive/prognostic biomarkers. Systemic inflammatory biomarkers could provide the basis for personalized treatment selection. This study aimed to assess the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS), the neutrophile-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) in men with mCRPC under docetaxel. Methods Patients with mCRPC and taxane chemotherapy at a tertiary care centre between 2010 and 2019 were screened retrospectively. The biomarkers mGPS, NLR, PLR and SII were assessed and analyzed for biochemical/radiologic response and survival. Results We included 118 patients. Of these, 73 (61.9%) had received docetaxel as first-line, 31 (26.2%) as second-line and 14 (11.9%) as third-line treatment. For biochemical response, mGPS (odds ratio (OR) 0.54, p = 0.04) and PLR (OR 0.63, p = 0.04) were independent predictors in multivariable analysis. SII was significant in first-line cohort only (OR 0.29, p = 0.02). No inflammatory marker was predictive for radiologic response. In multivariable analysis, mGPS and NLR (hazard ratio (HR) 1.71 and 1.12, both p < 0.01) showed significant association with OS in total cohort and mGPS in the first-line cohort (HR 2.23, p < 0.01). Haemoglobin (Hb) and alkaline phosphatase (AP) showed several significant associations regarding 1 year, 3 year, OS and biochemical/radiologic response. Conclusions Pre-treatment mGPS seems a promising prognostic biomarker. A combination of mGPS, NLR and further routine markers (e.g., Hb and AP) could yield optimized stratification for treatment selection. Further prospective and multicentric assessment is needed.
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 © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.