Select data courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

© 2026 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.

This site is protected by VikingCloud's Trusted Commerce program
      Home

    British Journal of Surgery

    Subject:
    Surgery
    Publisher:
    BJS Society — Oxford University Press
    ISSN:
    0007-1323
    Scimago Journal Rank:
    210

    2026

    Volume 113
    Supplement 6 (Jul)Supplement 5 (Jun)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2025

    Volume 113
    Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 112
    Supplement 17 (Dec)Supplement 16 (Dec)Supplement 15 (Dec)Supplement 14 (Nov)Supplement 13 (Aug)Supplement 12 (Aug)Supplement 11 (Aug)Supplement 10 (Jun)Supplement 9 (May)Supplement 8 (May)Supplement 7 (May)Supplement 6 (Mar)Supplement 5 (Feb)Supplement 4 (Feb)Supplement 3 (Jan)Supplement 2 (Jan)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2024

    Volume 112
    Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 111
    Supplement 9 (Nov)Supplement 8 (Sep)Supplement 7 (Aug)Supplement 6 (Jul)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2023

    Volume 111
    Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 110
    Supplement 10 (Dec)Supplement 9 (Dec)Supplement 8 (Nov)Supplement 7 (Aug)Supplement 6 (Aug)Supplement 5 (Jun)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Sep)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (May)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)

    2022

    Volume 110
    Issue 9 (Dec)Issue 8 (Dec)Issue 7 (Nov)Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Nov)
    Volume 109
    Supplement 9 (Dec)Supplement 8 (Nov)Supplement 7 (Oct)Supplement 6 (Aug)Supplement 5 (Aug)Supplement 4 (Jul)Supplement 3 (Jun)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Sep)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Jun)Issue 9 (May)Issue 8 (May)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Mar)Issue 5 (Feb)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)

    2021

    Volume 109
    Issue 5 (Dec)Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Nov)
    Volume 108
    Supplement 9 (Dec)Supplement 8 (Nov)Supplement 7 (Oct)Supplement 6 (Oct)Supplement 5 (Jul)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Apr)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (May)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Mar)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2020

    Volume 108
    Issue 6 (Sep)Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Dec)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 107
    Supplement 3 (Jun)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Mar)Issue 13 (Sep)Issue 12 (Sep)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Jul)Issue 9 (Jun)Issue 8 (Apr)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Feb)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2019

    Volume 106
    Supplement 7 (Nov)Supplement 6 (Sep)Supplement 5 (Sep)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Mar)Supplement 2 (Feb)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Jul)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2018

    Volume 105
    Supplement 6 (Nov)Supplement 5 (Aug)Supplement 4 (Jul)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Mar)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (Apr)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Feb)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2017

    Volume 104
    Supplement 7 (Sep)Supplement 6 (Jul)Supplement 5 (Jun)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Apr)Supplement 2 (Jan)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2016

    Volume 103
    Supplement 7 (Sep)Supplement 6 (Aug)Supplement 5 (Jul)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Apr)Supplement 2 (Feb)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Aug)Issue 11 (Aug)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2015

    Volume 102
    Supplement 7 (Sep)Supplement 6 (May)Supplement 5 (Apr)Supplement 4 (Mar)Supplement 3 (Jan)Supplement 2 (Feb)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2014

    Volume 102
    Supplement 1 (Dec)
    Volume 101
    Supplement 6 (Nov)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (Apr)Supplement 3 (Feb)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Feb)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2013

    Volume 100
    Supplement 8 (Sep)Supplement 7 (Jul)Supplement 6 (Jun)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (Apr)Supplement 3 (Mar)Supplement 2 (Mar)Supplement 1 (Mar)Issue 13 (Nov)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Aug)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jun)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Mar)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2012

    Volume 99
    Supplement 7 (Jul)Supplement 6 (Jun)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (Apr)Supplement 3 (Feb)Supplement 2 (Feb)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2011

    Volume 99
    Supplement 1 (Dec)
    Volume 98
    Supplement 8 (Nov)Supplement 7 (Oct)Supplement 6 (Jun)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Jun)Supplement 2 (Apr)Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2010

    Volume 98
    Supplement 1 (Dec)
    Volume 97
    Supplement 6 (Nov)Supplement 5 (Dec)Supplement 4 (Jun)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Jul)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2009

    Volume 96
    Supplement 6 (Oct)Supplement 5 (May)Supplement 4 (May)Supplement 3 (Apr)Supplement 2 (Nov)Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2008

    Volume 95
    Supplement 7 (Aug)Supplement 6 (May)Supplement 4 (Jul)Supplement 3 (May)Supplement 2 (May)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (Apr)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2007

    Volume 94
    Supplement 5 (Aug)Supplement 3 (Jul)Supplement 2 (Apr)Supplement 1 (Feb)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2006

    Volume 93
    Supplement 3 (Sep)Supplement 2 (Jan)Supplement 1 (May)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)
    Volume 4
    Issue 14 (Mar)

    2005

    Volume 92
    Supplement 1 (Apr)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)
    Volume 80
    Issue 3 (Dec)
    Volume 68
    Issue 10 (Dec)
    Volume 67
    Issue 6 (Dec)
    Volume 66
    Issue 4 (Dec)
    Volume 64
    Issue 7 (Dec)
    Volume 61
    Issue 6 (Dec)
    Volume 60
    Issue 5 (Dec)

    2004

    Volume 91
    Supplement 1 (Jun)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2003

    Volume 90
    Supplement 1 (May)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2002

    Volume 89
    Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Dec)Issue 10 (Nov)Issue 9 (Nov)Issue 8 (Nov)Issue 7 (Nov)Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Nov)Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Nov)Issue 2 (Nov)Issue 1 (Nov)
    Volume 88
    Issue 3 (Dec)

    2001

    Volume 88
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2000

    Volume 87
    Supplement 1 (Jun)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1999

    Volume 86
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1998

    Volume 85
    Supplement 2 (Jul)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1997

    Volume 84
    Supplement 2 (Jun)Supplement 1 (May)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1996

    Volume 83
    Supplement 2 (Nov)Supplement 1 (Jun)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1995

    Volume 82
    Supplement 1 (Nov)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1994

    Volume 81
    Supplement 1 (Oct)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1993

    Volume 80
    Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1992

    Volume 79
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1991

    Volume 78
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1990

    Volume 77
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1989

    Volume 76
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1988

    Volume 75
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1987

    Volume 74
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1986

    Volume 73
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1985

    Volume 72
    Supplement 1 (Sep)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1984

    Volume 71
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1983

    Volume 70
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1982

    Volume 69
    Supplement 6 (Dec)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1981

    Volume 68
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1980

    Volume 67
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1979

    Volume 66
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1978

    Volume 65
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1977

    Volume 64
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1976

    Volume 63
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1975

    Volume 62
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1974

    Volume 61
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1973

    Volume 60
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1972

    Volume 59
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1971

    Volume 58
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1970

    Volume 57
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1969

    Volume 56
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1968

    Volume 55
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1967

    Volume 54
    Issue 13 (Jan)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1966

    Volume 53
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1965

    Volume 52
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1964

    Volume 51
    Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1963

    Volume 50
    Issue 227 (Nov)Issue 226 (Sep)Issue 225 (Jul)Issue 224 (May)Issue 223 (Mar)Issue 222 (Jan)

    1962

    Volume 50
    Issue 221 (Nov)Issue 220 (Sep)Issue 219 (Jul)
    Volume 49
    Issue 218 (May)Issue 217 (Mar)

    1961

    Volume 49
    Issue 216 (Dec)Issue 215 (Nov)Issue 214 (Sep)Issue 213 (Jul)
    Volume 48
    Issue 212 (May)Issue 211 (Mar)Issue 210 (Jan)

    1960

    Volume 48
    Issue 209 (Nov)Issue 208 (Sep)Issue 207 (Jul)
    Volume 47
    Issue 206 (May)Issue 205 (Mar)Issue 204 (Jan)

    1959

    Volume 47
    Issue 203 (Nov)Issue 202 (Sep)Issue 201 (Jul)
    Volume 46
    Issue 200 (May)Issue 199 (Mar)Issue 198 (Jan)

    1958

    Volume 46
    Issue 197 (Nov)Issue 196 (Sep)Issue 195 (Jul)
    Volume 45
    Issue 194 (May)Issue 193 (Mar)Issue 192 (Jan)

    1957

    Volume 45
    Issue 191 (Nov)Issue 190 (Sep)Issue 189 (Jul)
    Volume 44
    Issue 188 (May)Issue 187 (Mar)Issue 186 (Jan)

    1956

    Volume 44
    Issue 185 (Nov)Issue 184 (Sep)Issue 183 (Jul)
    Volume 43
    Issue 182 (May)Issue 181 (Mar)Issue 180 (Jan)

    1955

    Volume 43
    Issue 179 (Nov)Issue 178 (Sep)Issue 177 (Jul)
    Volume 42
    Issue 176 (May)Issue 175 (Mar)Issue 174 (Jan)

    1954

    Volume 42
    Issue 173 (Nov)Issue 172 (Sep)Issue 171 (Jul)
    Volume 41
    Issue 170 (May)Issue 169 (Mar)Issue 168 (Jan)

    1953

    Volume 41
    Issue 167 (Nov)Issue 166 (Sep)Issue 165 (Jul)
    Volume 40
    Issue 164 (May)Issue 163 (Mar)Issue 162 (Jan)

    1952

    Volume 40
    Issue 161 (Nov)Issue 160 (Sep)Issue 159 (Jul)
    Volume 39
    Issue 158 (May)Issue 157 (Mar)Issue 156 (Jan)

    1951

    Volume 39
    Issue 155 (Nov)Issue 154 (Sep)Issue 153 (Jul)
    Volume 38
    Issue 152 (Apr)Issue 151 (Jan)

    1950

    Volume 38
    Issue 150 (Oct)Issue 149 (Jul)
    Volume 37
    Issue 148 (Apr)Issue 147 (Jan)

    1949

    Volume 37
    Issue 146 (Oct)Issue 145 (Jul)
    Volume 36
    Issue 144 (Apr)Issue 143 (Jan)

    1948

    Volume 36
    Issue 142 (Oct)Issue 141 (Jul)
    Volume 35
    Issue 140 (Apr)Issue 139 (Jan)

    1947

    Volume 35
    Issue 138 (Oct)Issue 137 (Jul)
    Volume 34
    Issue 136 (Apr)Issue 135 (Jan)

    1946

    Volume 34
    Issue 134 (Oct)Issue 133 (Jul)
    Volume 33
    Issue 132 (Apr)Issue 131 (Jan)

    1945

    Volume 33
    Issue 130 (Oct)Issue 129 (Jul)
    Volume 32
    Issue 128 (Apr)Issue 127 (Jan)

    1944

    Volume 32
    Issue 126 (Oct)Issue 125 (Jul)
    Volume 31
    Issue 124 (Apr)Issue 123 (Jan)

    1943

    Volume 31
    Issue 122 (Oct)Issue 121 (Jul)
    Volume 30
    Issue 120 (Apr)Issue 119 (Jan)

    1942

    Volume 30
    Issue 118 (Oct)Issue 117 (Jul)
    Volume 29
    Issue 116 (Apr)Issue 115 (Jan)

    1941

    Volume 29
    Issue 114 (Oct)Issue 113 (Jul)
    Volume 28
    Issue 112 (Apr)Issue 111 (Jan)

    1940

    Volume 28
    Issue 110 (Oct)Issue 109 (Jul)
    Volume 27
    Issue 108 (Apr)Issue 107 (Jan)

    1939

    Volume 27
    Issue 106 (Oct)Issue 105 (Jul)
    Volume 26
    Issue 104 (Apr)Issue 103 (Jan)

    1938

    Volume 26
    Issue 102 (Oct)Issue 101 (Jul)
    Volume 25
    Issue 100 (Apr)Issue 99 (Jan)

    1937

    Volume 25
    Issue 98 (Oct)Issue 97 (Jul)
    Volume 24
    Issue 96 (Apr)Issue 95 (Jan)

    1936

    Volume 24
    Issue 94 (Oct)Issue 93 (Jul)
    Volume 23
    Issue 92 (Apr)Issue 91 (Jan)

    1935

    Volume 23
    Issue 90 (Oct)Issue 89 (Jul)
    Volume 22
    Supplement 1 (Jun)Issue 88 (Apr)Issue 87 (Jan)

    1934

    Volume 22
    Issue 86 (Oct)Issue 85 (Jul)
    Volume 21
    Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 84 (Apr)Issue 83 (Jan)

    1933

    Volume 21
    Issue 82 (Oct)Issue 81 (Jul)
    Volume 20
    Supplement 32 (Apr)Supplement 31 (Apr)Supplement 30 (Apr)Supplement 29 (Apr)Issue 80 (Apr)Issue 79 (Jan)

    1932

    Volume 20
    Issue 78 (Oct)Issue 77 (Jul)
    Volume 19
    Issue 76 (Apr)Issue 75 (Jan)

    1931

    Volume 19
    Supplement 28 (Jan)Supplement 27 (Jan)Supplement 26 (Jan)Supplement 25 (Jan)Issue 74 (Oct)Issue 73 (Jul)
    Volume 18
    Supplement 24 (Jan)Supplement 23 (Jan)Supplement 22 (Jan)Supplement 21 (Jan)Issue 72 (Apr)Issue 71 (Jan)

    1930

    Volume 18
    Issue 70 (Oct)Issue 69 (Jul)
    Volume 17
    Supplement 20 (Jan)Supplement 19 (Jan)Issue 68 (Apr)Issue 67 (Jan)

    1929

    Volume 17
    Supplement 18 (Oct)Supplement 17 (Jan)Issue 66 (Oct)Issue 65 (Jul)
    Volume 16
    Supplement 16 (Jan)Supplement 15 (Jan)Supplement 14 (Jan)Supplement 13 (Jul)Issue 64 (Apr)Issue 63 (Jan)

    1928

    Volume 16
    Issue 62 (Oct)Issue 61 (Jul)
    Volume 15
    Issue 60 (Apr)Issue 59 (Jan)

    1927

    Volume 15
    Issue 58 (Oct)Issue 57 (Jul)
    Volume 14
    Supplement 8 (Apr)Supplement 7 (Apr)Supplement 6 (Apr)Supplement 5 (Apr)Issue 56 (Apr)Issue 55 (Jan)

    1926

    Volume 14
    Issue 54 (Oct)Issue 53 (Jul)
    Volume 13
    Supplement 1 (Jan)Issue 52 (Apr)Issue 51 (Jan)

    1925

    Volume 13
    Issue 50 (Oct)Issue 49 (Jul)
    Volume 12
    Issue 48 (Apr)Issue 47 (Jan)

    1924

    Volume 12
    Issue 46 (Oct)Issue 45 (Jul)
    Volume 11
    Issue 44 (Apr)Issue 43 (Jan)

    1923

    Volume 11
    Issue 42 (Oct)Issue 41 (Jul)
    Volume 10
    Issue 40 (Apr)Issue 39 (Jan)

    1922

    Volume 10
    Issue 38 (Oct)Issue 37 (Jul)
    Volume 9
    Issue 36 (Jan)Issue 35 (Jul)

    1921

    Volume 9
    Issue 34 (Jan)Issue 33 (Jul)

    1920

    Volume 8
    Issue 32 (Jan)Issue 31 (Jan)Issue 30 (Jan)Issue 29 (Jul)

    1919

    Volume 7
    Issue 28 (Jan)Issue 27 (Jan)Issue 26 (Jan)Issue 25 (Jul)

    1918

    Volume 6
    Issue 24 (Jan)Issue 23 (Jan)Issue 22 (Jan)Issue 21 (Jul)

    1917

    Volume 5
    Issue 20 (Jan)Issue 19 (Jan)Issue 18 (Jan)Issue 17 (Jul)

    1916

    Volume 4
    Issue 16 (Jan)Issue 15 (Jan)Issue 14 (Jan)Issue 13 (Jan)

    1915

    Volume 3
    Issue 12 (Jan)Issue 11 (Jan)Issue 10 (Jan)Issue 9 (Jan)

    1914

    Volume 2
    Issue 8 (Jan)Issue 7 (Jan)Issue 6 (Jan)Issue 5 (Jul)

    1913

    Volume 1
    Issue 4 (Jan)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jul)

    0020

    Volume 106
    January
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    BN SO54 - Complex Management of a Gastrocutaneous Fistula Following Pancreatic Necrosectomy: A Case Report

    Dionísio, Daniela Venâncio; Fonseca, Cláudia; Bicho, Luís; Pupo, Alexandra; Marques, Hugo Pinto

    2024 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znae271.225pmid: N/A

    BackgroundGastrocutaneous fistulas are rare but serious complications that can arise following the surgical treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis. This post-operatory complication can be refractory to conservative management and may be further aggravated by severe skin injuries and malnutrition. This case report describes the comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach of a challenging case of gastrocutaneous fistula, ultimately requiring re-intervention.MethodA 78-year-old female with a history of severe necrotizing pancreatitis underwent pancreatic necrosectomy by laparotomy. Postoperatively, she developed a gastric fistula, initially repaired with a double-layered suture. Recurrence led to a gastrocutaneous fistula with continuous gastric drainage and chemical burn of the surrounding skin. Initial conservative management included insertion of a nasogastric tube for gastric decompression, followed by placement of a PEG tube to redirect the drainage and prevent further skin damage and an esophagojejunal feeding tube to bypass the fistula and maintain nutrition. Nevertheless, the fistula persisted, resulting in significant skin erosion and deterioration of the patient’s condition.ResultsGiven the failure of conservative measures and a concurrent diagnosis of a pancreatic fistula, a surgical approach was deemed necessary. The patient was transferred to a specialized hospital center, where she underwent fistulectomy with partial gastrectomy and wound closure. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) was applied to the ulcerated skin to promote healing. This approach led to the successful closure of the gastrocutaneous fistula and healing of the skin wound. The patient showed marked clinical recovery, with no signs of infection or fistula recurrence and the nutritional status was successfully managed through enteral feeding leading to a notable functional recovery.ConclusionThis case underlines the complexity of managing gastrocutaneous fistulas, demonstrating the efficacy of combining surgical and supportive therapies, serving as a reference for similar future cases and emphasizing the need for comprehensive management strategies for complex postoperative complications.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    BN SO42 - Our experience of Emergency Laparoscopic Fundoplication in a DGH

    Khan, Amnah Ilyas; Mostafa, Omar; Sellahewa, Chaminda

    2024 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znae271.213pmid: N/A

    BackgroundEmergency presentation of hiatal hernias can be life-threatening and is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Elective Laparoscopic hiatus and paraoesophageal hernias are commonly performed with fundoplication. However, emergency cases are often repaired without an anti-reflux procedure. We present our experience of emergency Laparoscopic Hiatus/ Paraoesophageal hernia repair with fundoplication in a District General Hospital (Russells Hall Hospital, RHH).Method6 cases of diagnosed hiatus/ paraoesophageal hernia that underwent Emergency fundoplication from 2019-2024.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 74 (56-83). All patients had a pre-op CT scan to confirm the diagnosis. 4 patients (66%) had a Type 3 Hiatus hernia and 2 (33%) had a Type 2 classic paraosephageal hernia. All patients underwent Emergency Laparoscopic Hiatus / Para oesophagal hernia repair with fundoplication. 2 patients required mesh for the repair. The mean length of stay was 5 days (3-7). There were no intra or post-op complications and on follow up 1 patient had a recurrence of symptoms after 1 year requiring redo fundoplication.ConclusionThe choice of operation is mainly based on the patient’s clinical condition, the complexity of the hernia and the surgeon’s experience. Our experience at RHH shows that Laparoscopic Hiatus/ Paraoesophageal hernia repair with fundoplication is safe and feasible in patients with emergency presentation.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    BN O04 - Trends in the management of bile duct stones in the United Kingdom: Are we following the evidence?

    Brown, Oliver D; Aroori, Somaiah

    2024 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znae271.023pmid: N/A

    BackgroundCommon bile duct stones (CBDS) are typically managed in two stages: Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). However, access to ERCP can be limited or require referral, has a high failure rate, often necessitates additional imaging, and may involve multiple procedures. Increasing evidence suggests that single-stage management, involving LC with intraoperative imaging and bile duct exploration when indicated, is cheaper, more effective, and reduces overall length of stay. British Society of Gastroenterology guidance states that it is a valid alternative to ERCP. This study aimed to determine whether clinical practice aligns with this evidence.MethodNational Health Service (NHS) Admitted Patient Care publications summarise Hospital Episode Statistics by financial year and are openly accessible. OPCS4 Procedure Codes were screened by two authors and categorised as “operative” or “endoscopic.” Codes detailing the management of CBDS or bile duct exploration were included, while ambiguous codes or those for non-stone indications were excluded. Data pertaining to these codes were extracted from the Admitted Patient Care publications for 2012 to 2022 and summarised in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Trends were analysed using a Non-Seasonal Mann-Kendall Trend TestResultsA total of 249,475 procedures for CBDS were performed over the ten-year period, with a mean patient age of 67. Annually, the total number of procedures increased from 21,365 to 27,668 (p=0.002). Endoscopic procedures increased from 19,716 to 25,976 (p=0.002), while operative procedures remained stable (1,649 to 1,692, p=0.431). Consequently, the proportion of endoscopic management rose from 92.3% to 93.9% (p<0.001). The mean age of patients undergoing operative procedures was ten years younger than those undergoing endoscopic procedures (57 vs. 67 years)ConclusionDespite evidence and guidance supporting single-stage procedures, there is a trend towards endoscopic management of CBDS in the UK. This may be due to operational pressures on the NHS, including the sequelae of the COVID-19 pandemic, or reflect challenges within hospital culture, skill mix, or equipment availability.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    BS SO02 - A systematic review to summarise and appraise the reporting of surgical innovation: A case study in robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

    Huttman, Marc; Smith, Alexander; Robertson, Harry; Purves, Rory; Biggs, Sarah; Dewi, Ffion; Dixon, Lauren; Kirkham, Emily; Jones, Conor; Ramirez, Jozel; Scroggie, Darren; Pathak, Samir; Blencowe, Natalie

    2024 British Journal of Surgery
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    HPB SO62 - Association of positive bile cultures and the incidence of pancreatic fistulas post pancreaticoduodenectomy[PD]

    Atluri, Lakshmi Malvika; Chong, Kenneth; Subar, Daren

    2024 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znae271.293pmid: N/A

    BackgroundPostoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) remains a significant complication post pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Recent publications show no increased incidence of POPF due to positive bile cultures. A literature search on PubMed did not show any review on the relevance of specific cultures and their exact incidence of POPF.POPF is defined as Drain Amylase greater than three times its serum level on or after postoperative day 3. A relatively benign clinical course is grade A, moderately unwell patients requiring medical/minimal intervention (grade B), and critically ill patients with sepsis, requiring invasive intervention (grade C). Grade B + C is defined as CR-POPF.MethodA retrospective single-centre analysis of all patients with pancreaticoduodenectomy between 2017 and 2021 was reviewed. The clinical data that were reviewed were age, gender, length of stay[LOS], tumour staging, mortality rates, Pancreatic duct[PD], Pre-op stenting, the documented incidence of POPF/CR-POPF, Intra-Operative Bile Cultures[IOBC] and antibiotic sensitivity.The primary outcome was POPF. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mortality, LOS, return to theatre, Postoperative haemorrhage (POPH), and organ-specific relevance of POPF. All data was analysed using SPSS IBM version 29. P< 0.05 was taken as clinically significant.Results100 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 68.8 (SD-9.5). The M: F ratio was 54:46. The mean postoperative length of hospital stay was 19.38 days. 48 patients (48%) were diagnosed with a POPF, among which, 22 patients (47.8%) developed a CR-POPF. 57 patients had a positive IOBC. The incidence of POPF in patients with Positive IOBC was 43/57(75.43%) and that was 5/43(11.62%) of the patients with Negative IOBC (P < .0001).10% of patients had postoperative haemorrhage (POPH). 9% had 90-day mortality. All 9% of patients who had a return to theatre had POPF.ConclusionUnivariate analysis and logistic regression demonstrated that a positive IOBC had a higher associated incidence of POPF who underwent PD, with Klebsiella being the most common and statistically significant[P<.005]. The most common antibiotic found to be sensitive was Gentamicin, which is 25 per cent and, in combination with Co-amoxiclav, was found to be sensitive in 21.8% of cases. However, this is a single-centre retrospective study with variable operative techniques for different patient groups. Further studies would be warranted before correlating any results to all populations of patients developing POPF post pancreaticoduodenectomy.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    EDI&S SO02 The Aspire Initiative: A Community-Based Intervention to Champion Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in the Future Surgical Workforce

    Kanani, Trisha; Millard, Alice; Robertson, Francis; Issa, Eyad; Bhardwaj, Neil; Malde, Deep; Dennison, Ashley; Garcea, Giuseppe; Isherwood, John

    2024 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znae271.064pmid: N/A

    BackgroundIn March 2021, the Royal College of Surgeons of England published The Kennedy Report, an independent and powerful review addressing the critical issues surrounding equality, diversity and inclusion within the surgical profession. Chapter 5 of the review states that aspirations to become a surgeon can begin whilst at secondary school, yet students from diverse ethnic and social backgrounds felt discouraged by teachers who doubted their potential. We describe the development and implementation of a strategic careers outreach initiative across the state-funded secondary schools in our diverse community, aiming to engage and support aspiring surgeons early in their journey.MethodIn June 2023, The Aspire Initiative was launched as an independent entity supported by surgeons from the local Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Unit and sponsorship from the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Targeting students aged 13 to 17, the initiative offers community open events, inspiring video content, surgical work experience for those over 16, and outreach careers assemblies. Between November 2023 and March 2024, 13 assemblies were delivered at various state-funded secondary schools across Leicester. These sessions were led by surgeons reflecting ethnic, gender, and socio-economic diversity. Students were invited to complete surveys before and after the assembly to assess their impact.ResultsThe pre-session survey, completed by 874 students from Years 8-11, revealed that 149 aspired to be doctors or surgeons, while 243 were considering this (n=392). Of the 392 students, 57% reported that their parents had not attended university. Only 19% had a good understanding of the medical school application process, and 21% knew about the support available. Furthermore, 31% felt knowledgeable about the daily responsibilities and training pathways of medical professionals. The post-session survey, with 420 responses, showed significant improvements: 91% gained a better understanding of a surgical career and 52% felt more inspired and motivated to pursue their aspirations.ConclusionThe Kennedy Report recommended that careers outreach to diverse communities should be planned for as a strategic priority. This study highlights the impact of such initiatives in state-funded secondary schools, showing how they provide students from diverse social backgrounds with crucial insights into surgical careers. These programs help students make informed decisions and inspire them to pursue their aspirations by connecting with relatable role models. We propose that engaging with students at the secondary school level offers an ideal opportunity for surgeons to foster and sustain professional relationships with a diverse future workforce, laying foundations for continued support and mentorship.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    BN SO24 - Predicting incidental gallbladder cancer: A protocol for identifying predictive factors of incidentally detected gallbladder cancer and prospective validation of a scoring system to allow selective histological analysis of the gallbladder

    Brown, Oliver D; Sorrell, Lexy; Latour, Jos M; Aroori, Somaiah

    2024 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znae271.195pmid: N/A

    BackgroundIncidental Gallbladder Cancer (iGBC) is a rare complication of cholecystectomy, with a UK incidence of 0.14-0.3%. Despite its rarity, most gallbladder specimens are analysed histologically. Some comparable countries undertake Selective Histological Analysis (SHA), selecting high-risk specimens for histology based on clinical judgement or postoperative inspection. However, evidence suggests a third of diagnoses can be missed with these approaches. Swedish and Dutch diagnostic scores incorporate few risk factors and are not generalisable to the UK. We present a protocol for a UK study aiming to develop a detailed diagnostic score for iGBC to reliably stratify patients by their risk of iGBC.MethodThis UK multicentre, cross-sectional, trainee-led study includes adult patients undergoing cholecystectomy for benign indications. It incorporates a feasibility study and an adaptive design, and has been submitted for ethical review. A parallel qualitative study will explore attitudes towards the risk of iGBC and the acceptability of SHA among patients and healthcare professionals. The feasibility phase will include 500 patients over six months, collecting data on patient risk factors for iGBC, preoperative investigations, operative findings, and histology results. Exclusion criteria include cholecystectomy as a secondary procedure, polyps over 5mm, and conditions known to increase the risk of biliary tract cancers.ResultsFollowing the feasibility phase, the recruitment rate and data completeness will be evaluated. Outcomes will be assessed against anticipated values, and collaborators will be surveyed to identify challenges with data collection. Necessary adjustments to the electronic case record form or overall protocol will be made, and the recruitment target will be recalculated based on an updated sample size calculation. When the study meets specified progression criteria, additional sites will be recruited, and data collection will continue to meet the required sample size. A detailed statistical analysis plan will be provided at a later date.ConclusionThis protocol describes a UK diagnostic modelling study aimed at developing a risk-stratification score for iGBC in patients undergoing routine cholecystectomy, identifying high-risk patients and facilitating SHA.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    HPB O06 - A computer tomography-based radiomics signature predicts overall survival following curative resection of colorectal liver metastasis: A multicentre, retrospective study

    Mian, Areeb; Young, Robert; Lakah, Adil; Leptidis, Ioannis; Jones, Robert; Gordon-Weeks, Alex

    2024 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znae271.031pmid: N/A

    BackgroundColorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) has a heterogeneous outcome and improved prognostic biomarkers are needed to aid patient-tailored management. Here, we assess the value of Computer Tomography (CT)-guided radiomics in the prognostication of post-resection CRLM using data from two large tertiary referral centres in the UK.MethodPatient data was extracted from prospectively maintained databases of patients undergoing CRLM resection at two centres. CRLM and regions of interest from background normal liver were segmented. Radiomics features were extracted from portal venous phase CT images using open-source software. Feature selection techniques were applied. Machine learning models incorporating radiomic or clinical features, and their combination, were developed and assessed for mortality prediction at fixed time points. Cox proportional hazard regression was utilised for risk score generation to classify patients as high or low-risk for overall survival estimation. The models were evaluated on unseen testing data.ResultsRadiomics features (269) were generated from 959 metastases in 399 patients across the two sites. Models with combined clinical and radiomic features performed similarly to those with radiomic features alone, and often outperformed models with clinical features alone demonstrating good discrimination and risk prediction at 2 and 3 years. The computed radiomic scores allowed us to generate Kaplan–Meier curves which showed CRLM patients in the high-risk group had a lower overall survival vs the low-risk group(p<0.05). This risk-score independently predicted mortality in our multivariate Cox proportional-hazards model.ConclusionWe demonstrate a robust combination of CT-based radiomics features can predict CRLM outcomes across two different hospital sites. Our radiomic risk-scores predicts overall survival and can prognosticate patients into high and low risk groups. These findings support the prognostic utility of CT-based radiomics in patients undergoing resection of CRLM and provide rationale for further investigation in a prospective, multi-centre setting.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    BN SO39 - Laparoscopic Release of Median Arcuate Ligament Syndrome: A Case Series

    Patel, Agastya; Lancellotti, Francesco; Lambert, Joel; Kadamapuzha, Jacob; Satyadas, Thomas

    2024 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znae271.210pmid: N/A

    BackgroundMedian arcuate ligament syndrome (MALS) is a recognized, but rare condition, which is characterized by compression of the celiac artery and ganglion by median arcuate ligament. The entity often presented with chronic post-prandial abdominal pain, vomiting, and weight loss. These patients often undergo comprehensive investigation prior to diagnosis of MALS. This report presents our experience and short-term outcomes of patients with laparoscopic release of MALS at our center.MethodBetween 2022-2024, five patients with MALS underwent laparoscopic release at a tertiary HPB center under a single surgeon (TS). Data on patient demographics, presenting symptoms and duration, preoperative diagnostic tests, intraoperative findings and complications, postoperative complications, symptom recurrence and follow-up were prospectively maintained. All patients were discussed at a tertiary Vascular and HPB MDT; MALS was confirmed on US doppler (USD) and CT angiogram (CTA) (fish-hook type configuration of Celiac Truck with post-stenotic dilatation).ResultsTwo male and three female patients, with a median (range) age of 41 (25-70) years, underwent laparoscopic MALS release. The median (range) preoperative symptom duration was 54 (24-67) months, with most common presentation of post-prandial abdominal pain and weight loss. The median (range) BMI was 19.61 (18.30-17.82). The median (range) operative time was 313 (166-330) minutes. One patient required conversion to open due to bleeding from celiac trunk. The median (range) LOS was 7 (4-7) days. No postoperative complications occurred. The median follow-up was 10 months. One patient re-experienced abdominal pain, with no evidence of recurrence on USD and CTA.ConclusionMedian Arcuate Ligament Syndrome should be considered as a differential in patients presenting with chronic post-prandial abdominal pain and weight loss. Thorough investigation (USD and CTA) along with discussion at Vascular MDT should be undertaken. Laparoscopic release of MALS is a safe and effective treatment option in this cohort.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    OGC O05 - Utilising patient derived organoids to predict the response to treatment in gastric cancer

    Alam, Mushfique; Duckworth, Carrie; Howes, Nathan; Stephens, Nathan; Pritchard, Mark

    2024 British Journal of Surgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znae271.018pmid: N/A

    BackgroundGastric adenocarcinoma remains a significant global health burden. For advanced disease, treatment remains multi-modal with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by resectional surgery. Although the FLOT4-AIO trial has established the regimen of 5-fluorauracil, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin and Docetaxel (FLOT) as the gold standard, some patients demonstrate a poor or no response to treatment, resulting in adverse oncological outcomes. Currently there are no accurate biomarkers to assess or predict the treatment response to neoadjuvant therapy. This study aims to explore the potential of patient-derived organoids as a predictive model to assess the treatment response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric adenocarcinoma.MethodPatient derived organoids are a novel, 3 dimensional in-vitro model which recapitulates the different cells that constitute the tissue of origin. From June 2023 to June 2024, 25 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma, were recruited for tissue acquisition for organoid generation. Endoscopic biopsies of cancer tissue taken during OGD and staging laparoscopy were used to generate organoids from each patient. Organoids were subsequently expanded to a sufficient volume to allow cytotoxicity assays in response to different doses of the FLOT regimen. The organoid cytotoxicity response was compared to the patients radiological and pathological response following treatment.ResultsOrganoids were successfully generated from 76% of recruited patients (n=19). Of these, 4 patients and were excluded due to being unfit for neoadjuvant chemotherapy, whilst 2 were excluded due to the confirmation of metastatic disease, precluding neoadjuvant treatment. Finally a single patient was excluded due to mortality during neoadjuvant treatment. Of the remaining organoids, 5 were subjected to FLOT treatment within 2 weeks of tissue acquisition. Organoids demonstrated unique dose response profiles following with statistically significant differences in the IC50 values (p =0.048). The organoid responses corresponded to the clinical responses demonstrated by the patient they were derived from.ConclusionIn conclusion, this study underscores the potential of patient-derived cancer organoids as a predictive model for assessing the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric adenocarcinoma. The generation of organoids from a significant proportion of patients and the subsequent drug response testing within 2 weeks of tissue acquisition suggests this novel method has the potential to become a valuable tool for predicting patient-specific responses and guiding personalised treatment plans. As such, further research is warranted to further assess the validity of this model, refine the existing techniques and explore its potential integration into clinical practice.

    Showing 1 to 10 of 309 Articles

    Previous12345…31Next
    Articles per page
    Browse All Journals

    Related Journals:

    Annals of SurgeryPlastic and Reconstructive SurgeryJAMA SurgerySurgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional TechniquesWorld Journal of SurgeryAnnals of Plastic SurgeryLangenbeck's Archives of SurgeryAesthetic Plastic SurgeryFacial Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic MedicineMicrosurgery

    doi: 10.1093/bjs/znae271.072pmid: N/A

    BackgroundRobotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) is an innovative alternative to the laparoscopic approach, however its clinical benefits are uncertain. The Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework was developed to improve the evaluation of surgical innovations alongside their adoption into clinical practice. Studies investigating the benefits of RRYGB have been published, however the reporting quality and robustness of literature has not been assessed. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise and appraise the reporting of RRYGB as a case study of a surgical innovation in relation to the IDEAL framework.MethodSystematic searches for primary studies evaluating totally RRYGB were undertaken. Their IDEAL stages were determined using a standardised algorithm. Information pertaining to study characteristics, governance/ethical factors, patient selection, demographics, surgeon expertise/training, technique description and outcomes were extracted. A narrative summary was formulated, with descriptive statistics and data arranged chronologically. All methodology was done in accordance with PRISMA guidance.ResultsFourty-seven studies published between 2005-2024 were included: case report (n=1), case series (n=11), non-randomised comparative (n=28) and retrospective analysis of registry databases (n=7). IDEAL stages were assigned as follows: stage 1 (n=1), stage 2a (n=6), stage 2b (n=40), stage 3 (n=0), stage 4 (n=0). There was a lack of sequential progression through IDEAL stages as time progressed since the inception of RRYGB. There was incomplete and inconsistent reporting of governance, ethics, patient selection criteria, surgeon expertise/training and technique description. Outcomes were heterogenous and rarely corresponded to progress through the IDEAL model of surgical innovation.ConclusionReporting of RRYGB literature correlated poorly with IDEAL recommendations. This indicates poor reporting quality of available literature, impeding the ability for surgeons to draw meaningful conclusions from available evidence. This also complicates patients’ ability to take part in shared decision-making and give informed consent. Future studies should report findings in a structured way using IDEAL guidance or a similar reporting standard. This will ensure future research is transparent, robustly designed, prospective, uses COSs and follows an ethos of incremental learning. This may reduce research waste and the premature adoption of surgical innovations, ensuring their safe introduction into clinical practice.