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.
A great deal of biomedical research focuses on new biotechnologies such as gene editing, stem cell biology and reproductive medicine, which have created a scientific revolution. While the potential medical benefits of this research may be far-reaching, ethical issues related to non-medical applications of these technologies are demanding. We analyze, from a Jewish legal perspective, some of the ethical conundrums that society faces in pushing the outer limits in researching these new biotechnologies.
A 20-year-old female patient was admitted to hospital because of bilateral leg weakness. Laboratory investigation showed metabolic alkalosis and severe hypokalemia. Differential diagnosis included mineralocorticoid or apparent mineralocorticoid excess diseases, with a high aldosterone-to-renin ratio (ARR) after correcting hypokalemia. After confirmatory tests, imaging studies revealed a unilateral adrenocortical adenoma consistent with Conn’s disease. Surgery was curative.
Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal was once a new and unknown publication. Today we have more than 17,000 subscribers from 146 nations and territories. We published 39 scientific medical papers in 2017 out of 61 submitted manuscripts.
We are now indexed by PubMed and Thompson Reuters Emerging Sources Citation Index, to name a few. Next year, the Journal is scheduled to receive an official impact factor from Thompson Reuters.
We are not so unknown anymore.
As a new Journal, most of the papers submitted were naturally reviews. However, the most important aspect for the promotion and advancement of medicine is publication of original research. To promote such efforts the editors of Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal established in 2017 the Maimonides Best Published Original Research Prize. This annual prize of $1,000 is to be awarded to the first author of the best original research paper published in the journal over the previous year.
Despite daunting circumstances, history is full of stories of men and women incarcerated by the Nazis, who risked their lives to save others. In some cases, the moral dilemma faced by these people presented an unquestionable challenge—particularly for those in the medical profession who had taken an oath to save life. This paper presents the dramatic stories of Dr. Gisella Perl and Dr. Erno Vadasz. Although their choices were markedly different, their goals were the same—to save as many lives as possible.
I am pleased to announce that the winner of the 2018 Maimonides Best Published Original Research Prize is Dr. Louise Kezerle, the first author of the paper entitled, “A Population-based Study of Peripartum Cardiomyopathy in Southern Israel: Are Bedouin Women a New High-risk Group?” with co-authors Iftach M. Sagy, Leah Shalev, Offer Erez, and Leonid Barski.
Idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) is a rare, heterogeneous disorder characterized by a strikingly high eosinophil count (>1,500 cells/µL), over a long period of time (>6 months), with end organ damage. We present a 60-year-old patient with idiopathic HES with isolated liver involvement, a rare systemic dis¬ease and a rare solid organ involvement. The patient had a thorough investigational work up until HES was established, including liver biopsy. He needed intensive immunosuppressive treatment at first with steroids, then with azathioprine in conjunction with a low dose of steroids. After 16 years of follow-up, the patient showed no evidence of liver dysfunction. To the best of our knowledge, this is the longest follow-up for a patient with HES-associated chronic hepatitis. Our observation suggests that, with appropriate treatment, liver involvement in HES may be well controlled without deterioration to advanced liver failure.
To the Editor,
I thank Rabbi Spitz for his thoughtful analysis. However, I humbly disagree with his conclusion that it is premature to classify e-cigarettes as “downright prohibited.”
Background: The ratio between the fetal umbilical artery pulsatility index (UA-PI) and the middle cerebral artery pulsatility index (MCA-PI) is termed the cerebroplacental ratio (CPR). The CPR represents fetal blood flow redistribution at the early stages of placental insufficiency; moreover, it has predictive value for adverse intrapartum and neonatal outcomes. However, internationally accepted reference ranges for CPR are lacking.
Objective: This study sought to establish UA-PI, MCA-PI, and CPR reference ranges in low-risk, normal-growth singleton fetuses during the third trimester of pregnancy.
Methods: A retrospective cohort cross-sectional study was performed in the obstetrics ultrasound unit of a university hospital in Israel. We reviewed all fetal and maternal electronic records of pregnant women referred for ultrasound assessment during the third trimester between January 2014 and January 2019. We included only singleton pregnancies with normal anatomy scans and a normal third-trimester estimated fetal weight. The UA-PI, MCA-PI, and CPR reference ranges were reconstructed for each of the vessels for each gestational age between 29 and 41 weeks.
Results: A total of 560 pregnancies met the inclusion criteria. Satisfactory waveforms and measurements were obtained in all cases. At least 18 women enrolled at each gestational week. The MCA-PI and CPR val-ues showed a similar parabolic curve during the third trimester of pregnancy, with a peak value at 32 and 33 gestational weeks, respectively. The UA-PI showed a linear and gradual decrease over the gestational age.
Conclusions: In this study we established UA-PI, MCA-PI, and CPR reference ranges in low-risk, normal-growth singleton fetuses during the third trimester based on the Israeli population.
