Single port laparoscopic repair of incarcerated ventral hernia. Re: Laparoscopic repair of incarcerated ventral abdominal wall hernias, Shah RH et al. (2008) Hernia 12(5):457-463

Comparison of Medical Research Abstracts Written by Surgical Trainees and Senior Surgeons or Generated by Large Language Models

Importance

Artificial intelligence (AI) has permeated academia, especially OpenAI Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT), a large language model. However, little has been reported on its use in medical research.

Objective

To assess a chatbot's capability to generate and grade medical research abstracts.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 (referred to as chatbot 1 and chatbot 2) were coached to generate 10 abstracts by providing background literature, prompts, analyzed data for each topic, and 10 previously presented, unassociated abstracts to serve as models. The study was conducted between August 2023 and February 2024 (including data analysis).

Exposure

Abstract versions utilizing the same topic and data were written by a surgical trainee or a senior physician or generated by chatbot 1 and chatbot 2 for comparison. The 10 training abstracts were written by 8 surgical residents or fellows, edited by the same senior surgeon, at a high-volume hospital in the Southeastern US with an emphasis on outcomes-based research. Abstract comparison was then based on 10 abstracts written by 5 surgical trainees within the first 6 months of their research year, edited by the same senior author.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measurements were the abstract grades using 10- and 20-point scales and ranks (first to fourth). Abstract versions by chatbot 1, chatbot 2, junior residents, and the senior author were compared and judged by blinded surgeon-reviewers as well as both chatbot models. Five academic attending surgeons from Denmark, the UK, and the US, with extensive experience in surgical organizations, research, and abstract evaluation served as reviewers.

Results

Surgeon-reviewers were unable to differentiate between abstract versions. Each reviewer ranked an AI-generated version first at least once. Abstracts demonstrated no difference in their median (IQR) 10-point scores (resident, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; senior author, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; chatbot 1, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; chatbot 2, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; P = .61), 20-point scores (resident, 14.0 [12.0-7.0]; senior author, 15.0 [13.0-17.0]; chatbot 1, 14.0 [12.0-16.0]; chatbot 2, 14.0 [13.0-16.0]; P = .50), or rank (resident, 3.0 [1.0-4.0]; senior author, 2.0 [1.0-4.0]; chatbot 1, 3.0 [2.0-4.0]; chatbot 2, 2.0 [1.0-3.0]; P = .14). The abstract grades given by chatbot 1 were comparable to the surgeon-reviewers' grades. However, chatbot 2 graded more favorably than the surgeon-reviewers and chatbot 1. Median (IQR) chatbot 2-reviewer grades were higher than surgeon-reviewer grades of all 4 abstract versions (resident, 14.0 [12.0-17.0] vs 16.9 [16.0-17.5]; P = .02; senior author, 15.0 [13.0-17.0] vs 17.0 [16.5-18.0]; P = .03; chatbot 1, 14.0 [12.0-16.0] vs 17.8 [17.5-18.5]; P = .002; chatbot 2, 14.0 [13.0-16.0] vs 16.8 [14.5-18.0]; P = .04). When comparing the grades of the 2 chatbots, chatbot 2 gave higher median (IQR) grades for abstracts than chatbot 1 (resident, 14.0 [13.0-15.0] vs 16.9 [16.0-17.5]; P = .003; senior author, 13.5 [13.0-15.5] vs 17.0 [16.5-18.0]; P = .004; chatbot 1, 14.5 [13.0-15.0] vs 17.8 [17.5-18.5]; P = .003; chatbot 2, 14.0 [13.0-15.0] vs 16.8 [14.5-18.0]; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, trained chatbots generated convincing medical abstracts, undifferentiable from resident or senior author drafts. Chatbot 1 graded abstracts similarly to surgeon-reviewers, while chatbot 2 was less stringent. These findings may assist surgeon-scientists in successfully implementing AI in medical research.

Laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair: updated Consensus Development Conference based guidelines [corrected]

BACKGROUND

The Executive board of the Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) promoted an update of the first evidence-based Italian Consensus Conference Guidelines 2010 because a large amount of literature has been published in the last 4 years about the topics examined and new relevant issues.

METHODS

The scientific committee selected the topics to be addressed: indications to surgical treatment including special conditions (obesity, cirrhosis, diastasis recti abdominis, acute presentation); safety and outcome of intraperitoneal meshes (synthetic and biologic); fixing devices (absorbable/non-absorbable); abdominal border and parastomal hernia; intraoperative and perioperative complications; and recurrent ventral/incisional hernia. All the recommendations are the result of a careful and complete literature review examined with autonomous judgment by the entire panel. The process was supervised by experts in methodology and epidemiology from the most qualified Italian institution. Two external reviewers were designed by the EAES and EHS to guarantee the most objective, transparent, and reliable work. The Oxford hierarchy (OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*. "The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence") was used by the panel to grade clinical outcomes according to levels of evidence. The recommendations were based on the grading system suggested by the GRADE working group.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The availability of recent level 1 evidence (a meta-analysis of 10 RCTs) allowed to recommend that not only laparoscopic repair is an acceptable alternative to the open repair, but also it is advantageous in terms of shorter hospital stay and wound infection rate. This conclusion appears to be extremely relevant in a clinical setting. Indications about specific conditions could also be issued: laparoscopy is recommended for the treatment of recurrent ventral hernias and obese patients, while it is a potential option for compensated cirrhotic and childbearing-age female patients. Many relevant and controversial topics were thoroughly examined by this consensus conference for the first time. Among them are the issue of safety of the intraperitoneal mesh placement, traditionally considered a major drawback of the laparoscopic technique, the role for the biologic meshes, and various aspects of the laparoscopic approach for particular locations of the defect such as the abdominal border or parastomal hernias.

SILS Incisional Hernia Repair: Is It Feasible in Giant Hernias? A Report of Three Cases

Aim. Three incisional ventral abdominal wall hernias were repaired by placing a 20 × 30 cm composite mesh via single incision of 2 cm. Methods. All three cases had previous operations and presented with giant incisional defects clinically. The defects were repaired laparoscopically via single incision with the placement of a composite mesh of 20 × 30 cm. Nonabsorbable sutures were needed to hang and fix the mesh only in the first case. Double-crown technique was used in all of the cases to secure the mesh to the anterior abdominal wall. Results. The mean operation time was 120 minutes. The patients were mobilized and led for oral intake at the first postoperative day. No morbidity occurred. Conclusion. Abdominal incisional hernias can be repaired via single incision with a mesh application in experienced centers.

Analysis of standard multiport versus single-site access for laparoscopic skills training

BACKGROUND

Single-site-access (SSA) laparoscopy is more challenging to perform than multiport (MP) laparoscopy. This study examined the effect of MP versus SSA skills training on laparoscopic performance using surgically naive medical students.

METHODS

For the study, 40 medical students at the end of their first year were randomized into two groups. Both groups were trained in four basic laparoscopic drills (peg, rope, bean drop, pattern cutting) using a standard MP setup (group 1) and an SSA approach (group 2). The time and number of repetitions required to attain proficiency were recorded. Each group then crossed over to the alternate approach and repeated the sequence. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, and statistical analysis was performed using the two-tailed, unpaired t test.

RESULTS

The total times required to attain proficiency for the SSA and MP approaches were not significantly different between the MP-trained group (234.0 ± 114.9 min) and the SSA-trained group (216.4 ± 106.5 min) (p = 0.67). The MP-trained group required less time to reach proficiency on the standard MP setup than the group using the SSA approach (119.1 ± 69.7 vs. 178.0 ± 93.4 min; p = 0.058) and significantly fewer repetitions (77.6 ± 42.6 vs. 118.8 ± 54.3; p = 0.027). The SSA-trained group required significantly less time to reach proficiency on the MP setup than the standard MP-trained group (38.4 ± 29.4 vs. 119.1 ± 69.7 min; p = 0.0013) and needed only a mean of 26.9 repetitions. When the standard MP trainees crossed over to the SSA setup, they required significantly less time to reach proficiency with the SSA approach than the SSA-trained group (114.8 ± 50.5 vs. 178.0 ± 93.4 min; p = 0.026) but required more repetitions than with the MP approach (86.2 ± 35.2 vs. 77.6 ± 42.6; nonsignificant difference).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic SSA skills training results in longer times and more repetitions to achieve proficiency than MP training, but the skills acquired transfer well to the MP approach.

Single-port access prosthetic repair for primary and incisional ventral hernia: toward less parietal trauma

BACKGROUND

Although still under development, single-port access (SPA) approach may be of interest in patients prone to port-side incisional hernia, ensuring absence of increased fascial incision. This forms the basis for evaluating SPA for prosthetic ventral hernia repair. We report a new SPA technique of ventral hernia repair using working-channel endoscope, standard laparoscopic instruments, and 10-mm port.

METHODS

Prospective experience with SPA prosthetic repair of primary and incisional ventral hernia in 52 patients for 55 ventral hernias is presented. Median (range) patient age was 46 years (26-85 years), and BMI was 28 kg/m2 (20-38 kg/m2). Mean fascial defect was 16.2 cm2 for primary hernia (n=23) and 48.3 cm2 for incisional hernia (n=32). Intraperitoneal composite mesh repair was achieved through single 10-mm flank port using working-channel endoscope. Meshes were fixed using absorbable tackers and transfascial stitches.

RESULTS

SPA repair of primary and incisional ventral hernia was completed in all cases without conversion to standard laparoscopy. Median (range) operative time was 54 min (39-95 min). Mesh size ranged from 118 to 500 cm2. No intra- or postoperative complications were recorded, except two seromas. Median (range) hospital stay was 1 day (1-5 days). One patient presented prolonged postoperative pain on mesh fixation that resolved after 3 months. No recurrence or port-site incisional hernias have been recorded at median (range) follow-up of 16 months (3-28 months).

CONCLUSIONS

SPA prosthetic repair of primary and incisional ventral hernia is easily feasible according to natural exposition by pneumoperitoneum and gravity. In the present series, SPA ventral hernia repair appears to be safe for experienced SPA surgeons. It may decrease parietal trauma and scarring in patients prone to incisional hernia. SPA repair may be associated with a decrease in rate of port-site incisional hernia compared with multiport laparoscopy, but this has to be verified by randomized trial with standard laparoscopic approach on long-term follow-up.