Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Clinical Endoscopy ; : 355-364, 2022.
Article in English | WPRIM | ID: wpr-925791

ABSTRACT

Background/Aims@#Colonoscopy is the gold standard diagnostic method for colorectal neoplasia, allowing detection and resection of adenomatous polyps; however, significant proportions of adenomas are missed. Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems in endoscopy are currently available to help identify lesions. Diminutive (≤5 mm) and nonpedunculated polyps are most commonly missed. This meta-analysis aimed to assess whether CADe systems can improve the real-time detection of these commonly missed lesions. @*Methods@#A comprehensive literature search was performed. Randomized controlled trials evaluating CADe systems categorized by morphology and lesion size were included. The mean number of polyps and adenomas per patient was derived. Independent proportions and their differences were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects modeling. @*Results@#Seven studies, including 2,595 CADe-assisted colonoscopies and 2,622 conventional colonoscopies, were analyzed. CADe-assisted colonoscopy demonstrated an 80% increase in the mean number of diminutive adenomas detected per patient compared with conventional colonoscopy (0.31 vs. 0.17; effect size, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09–0.18); it also demonstrated a 91.7% increase in the mean number of nonpedunculated adenomas detected per patient (0.32 vs. 0.19; effect size, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02–0.07). @*Conclusions@#CADe-assisted endoscopy significantly improved the detection of most commonly missed adenomas. Although this method is a potentially exciting technology, limitations still apply to current data, prompting the need for further real-time studies.

2.
Archives of Plastic Surgery ; : 145-152, 2016.
Article in English | WPRIM | ID: wpr-82074

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Innovation has molded the current landscape of plastic surgery. However, documentation of this process only exists scattered throughout the literature as individual articles. The few attempts made to profile innovation in plastic surgery have been narrative, and therefore qualitative and inherently biased. Through the implementation of a novel innovation metric, this work aims to identify and characterise the most prevalent innovations in plastic surgery over the last 50 years. METHODS: Patents and publications related to plastic surgery (1960 to 2010) were retrieved from patent and MEDLINE databases, respectively. The most active patent codes were identified and grouped into technology areas, which were subsequently plotted graphically against publication data. Expert-derived technologies outside of the top performing patents areas were additionally explored. RESULTS: Between 1960 and 2010, 4,651 patents and 43,118 publications related to plastic surgery were identified. The most active patent codes were grouped under reconstructive prostheses, implants, instruments, non-invasive techniques, and tissue engineering. Of these areas and other expert-derived technologies, those currently undergoing growth include surgical instruments, implants, non-invasive practices, transplantation and breast surgery. Innovations related to microvascular surgery, liposuction, tissue engineering, lasers and prostheses have all plateaued. CONCLUSIONS: The application of a novel metric for evaluating innovation quantitatively outlines the natural history of technologies fundamental to the evolution of plastic surgery. Analysis of current innovation trends provides some insight into which technology domains are the most active.


Subject(s)
Bias , Breast , Diffusion of Innovation , Fungi , Lipectomy , Natural History , Plastics , Prostheses and Implants , Publications , Surgery, Plastic , Surgical Instruments , Tissue Engineering
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL