Background: Guidelines and Class 1 evidence are strong factors that help guide surgeons’ decision-making, but dilemmas exist in selecting the best surgical option, usually without the benefit of guidelines or Class 1 evidence. A few studies have discussed the variability of surgical treatment options that are currently available, but no study has examined surgeons’ views on the influential factors that encourage them to choose one surgical treatment over another. This study examines the influential factors and the thought process that encourage surgeons to make these decisions in such circumstances.
Methods: Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 32 senior consultant surgeons, surgical fellows, and senior surgical residents at the University of Toronto teaching hospitals. An e-mail was sent out for volunteers, and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to thematic analysis using open and axial coding.
Results: Broadly speaking there are five groups of factors affecting surgeons’ decision-making: medical condition, information, institutional, patient, and surgeon factors. When information factors such as guidelines and Class 1 evidence are lacking, the other four groups of factors—medical condition, institutional, patient, and surgeon factors (the last-mentioned likely being the most powerful)—play a significant role in guiding surgical decision-making.
Conclusions: This study is the first qualitative study on surgeons’ perspectives on the influential factors that help them choose one surgical treatment option over another for their patients.
Although the word “robot” was coined in 1921, only close to 70 years later were robotic devices developed to assist during surgery. Urology has always been at the forefront of endoscopic, minimally invasive, and robotic developments in medicine. Robotic prostatectomy signaled the emerging role of robotic surgery in urology, but since then it has been applied to every urologic laparoscopic procedure.
Dominant negative mutations in STAT3, a critical signaling molecule and transcription factor in multiple organ systems, lead to a rare monogenic disease called the STAT3 loss-of-function, autosomal dominant hyper-IgE syndrome (STAT3LOF AD-HIES). The original name for this syndrome, Job’s syndrome, was derived from the observation that patients had a propensity to develop skin boils, reminiscent of the affliction cast upon the biblical Job. Many fascinating observations have been made regarding the pathogenesis of the disease and the role STAT3 plays in human health and disease. Additionally, quite a few phenotypic descriptions from the Book of Job are similar to those seen in patients with STAT3LOF AD-HIES, beyond just the boils. This complex multisystem genetic disorder is a challenge clinically and scientifically, but it also brings into question how we approach genetic syndromes beyond just the technical aspects of research and treatment.
OBJECTIVE: Right-sided endocarditis (RSE) accounts for 5%–10% of all cases of infective endocarditis (IE) and frequently has different etiological, pathogenetic, and clinical presentations compared with left-sided endocarditis (LSE). The aims of this study were to evaluate the epidemiologic and clinical characteristics and prognosis of RSE patients and to compare them with those of LSE patients. This study’s importance relates to the local understanding of RSE and LSE, since Israeli demographics are different compared to the Unites States and Europe with regard to intravenous drug abuse and rheumatic valvular disease prevalence.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 215 patients with infective endocarditis was performed. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were duration of hospitalization, recurrent hospitalization, recurrent infective endocarditis, and one-year mortality.
RESULTS: Of the 215 patients in the study, 176 had LSE and 39 had RSE. The RSE patients were younger than the LSE patients (48.1±18.9 years versus 61.8±17.0 years, P<0.001). The most common pathogen in both groups was Staphylococcus aureus, which occurred more in the RSE group (51%) versus the LSE group (19%). In-hospital mortality was lower among patients with RSE (2.6% versus 17%, P<0.037).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated an increasing percentage of RSE compared to LSE among patients with IE. Pacemaker lead infection has become the leading cause of RSE in intravenous drug users (IVDU), although less common in Southern Israel. The etiological and clinical differences between RSE and LSE are noteworthy. Patients with RSE have a better prognosis than those with LSE.
In the early seventeenth century, the Jews formally established two separate communities in Amsterdam, the Portuguese Sephardi and the High German Ashkenazi congregations. Until the end of the eighteenth century, medical care for the Amsterdam indigent Jews had been controlled and regulated by the powerful Parnasim, the de facto rulers, of each community. The primary communal organizations that were exclu¬sively responsible for medical care for the poor were the Bikur Holim societies. This approach for the care of the indigent Jewish sick became ineffective in the nineteenth century and was replaced by a hospital-based system. This essay describes how seriously ill indigent Jews in nineteenth-century Amsterdam received hospital care, tracing the establishment and development of the first Ashkenazi and Sephardi hospitals in the city. Although each community established their own hospital, they used different approaches to accomplish this goal.
Glaucoma is a chronic neurodegenerative optic nerve disease. Treatment is intended to prevent the development and progression of optic nerve damage by lowering intraocular pressure (IOP). Current therapy options include topical/systemic drugs that increase aqueous humor outflow or decrease its production, laser therapy that targets the trabecular meshwork and ciliary body, and incisional surgery. Trabeculectomy as well as glaucoma drainage devices are often performed, given their high efficacy in lowering IOP. However, the significant risk profile with potential sight-threatening complications has motivated glaucoma experts to create alternative surgeries to treat glaucoma. Minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) is defined by: micro-invasive approach, minimal tissue trauma, high safety profile, and rapid recovery. The new devices might promote an earlier transition from medical/laser therapy to surgery, and therefore decrease the side effects associated with long-term use of topical medications as well as deal with the limited adherence of patients to their regimens. This review presents the surgical options available for glaucoma patients and their evolution over the past 25 years.
Background: The importance of emotional intelligence (EI) to the success of health professionals has been increasingly acknowledged. Concurrently, medical schools have begun integrating non-cognitive measures in candidate selection processes. The question remains whether these newly added processes correctly assess EI skills.
Objectives: Measuring EI levels among medical students; examining the correlations between participants’ EI levels and their scores on the non-cognitive MOR test; and exploring students’ attitudes regarding the importance of EI in medical practice.
Methods: The study included 111 first-year and sixth-year students at the Faculty of Medicine at the Technion, Haifa, Israel. Emotional intelligence was assessed by the Bar-On EQ-i 2.0, and MOR evaluation scores were provided by the faculty. An additional questionnaire was designed to rate students’ attitudes toward the importance of EI to the success of medical doctors (MDs).
Results: No significant correlations were found between MOR test scores and EI evaluation scores. Of the 15 EI competencies evaluated, mean scores for flexibility, problem-solving, and independence were lowest for both the first-year and the sixth-year study groups. No differences in EI levels between first-year and sixth-year students were found. Both groups of students considered EI to be highly important to their success as MDs.
Conclusions: While further studies of the links between MOR tests and EI are required, the current findings indicate that MOR test scores may not be predictive of medical students’ EI levels and vice versa. As previous evidence suggests that EI contributes to professional success and to better outcomes in the field of medicine, integrating it into selection processes for medical students and into the curricula in medical schools is recommended.
Objective: The World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines for cancer pain management were intentionally made simple in order to be widely implemented by all physicians treating cancer patients. Referrals to pain specialists are advised if pain does not improve within a short time. The present study examined whether or not a reasonable use of the WHO guideline was made by non-pain specialists prior to referral of patients with cancer-related pain to a pain clinic.
Methods: Cancer patients referred to a pain specialist completed several questionnaires including demographics, medical history, and cancer-related pain; the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ); and the Short Form Health Survey SF-12. Data from referral letters and medical records were obtained. Treatments recommended by pain specialists were recorded and categorized as “unjustified” if they were within the WHO ladder framework, or “justified” if they included additional treatments.
Results: Seventy-three patients (44 women, 29 men) aged 55 years (range, 25–85) participated in the study. Their pain lasted for a mean of 6 (1–192) months. Mean pain intensity scores on a 0–10 numerical rating scale were 7 (2–10) at rest and 8 (3–10) upon movement. Most patients complied with their referring physician’s recommendations and consumed opioids. Adverse events were frequent. No significant correlation was found between the WHO analgesic medication step used and mean pain levels reported. There were 63 patient referrals (85%) categorized as “unjustified,” whereas only 11 patients (15%) required “justified” interventions.
Conclusions: These findings imply that analgesic treatment within the WHO framework was not reasonably utilized by non-pain specialists before referring patients to pain clinics.
To the Editor,
I am writing in response to Dr Sharon Galper Grossman’s recent fascinating article, “Vape Gods and Judaism—E-cigarettes and Jewish Law.”1 The author extrapolates from rabbinic literature regard-ing combustible cigarettes and suggests that the preliminary data establishing the dangers of e-cigarettes, and the government warnings against usage, would render these products prohibited under Jewish law, especially for youth and pregnant women.
United States (US) and European Union (EU) laws attempt to counterbalance the presumed discrimination of children in drug treatment and drug development. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-rewarded pediatric studies with antidepressants triggered in 2004 an FDA black-box warning of suicidality in young patients. Fewer antidepressants were prescribed, and the number of completed suicides of young persons increased. The dilemma between this warning and the need to adequately treat young depressed patients remains unsolved. We analyzed the history of drug development, the evolving view of diseases in young patients, US/EU pediatric laws, and pediatric studies triggered by FDA/European Medicines Agency (EMA) in depression and other diseases on the background of developmental pharmacology; financial, institutional, and other interests; and the literature. The FDA/EMA define children administratively, not physio¬logically, as <17 (FDA)/<18 years old (EMA). But young persons mature physiologically well before their 17th/18th birthday. Depression occurs in young persons, has special characteristics, but is not fundamentally different from adult depression. Young persons are not another species. Regulatory requirements for “pediatric” studies focus on “pediatric” labels. Many “pediatric” studies, including those in depression, lacked and lack medical sense and harm patients by placebo treatment although effective drugs exist. The FDA has partially abandoned separate “pediatric” efficacy studies, but not in psychiatry. Clinicians, parents, institutional review boards, and ethics committees should become aware of questionable “pediatric” studies, should re-evaluate ongoing ones, consider to suspend them, and to reject new ones. The concept of separate “pediatric” drug approval needs to be abandoned.
