ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The referral process is an important research focus because of the potential consequences of delays, especially for patients with serious medical conditions that need immediate care, such as those with metastatic cancer. Thus, a systematic literature review of recent and influential manuscripts is critical to understanding the current methods and future directions in order to improve the referral process. METHODS: A hybrid bibliometric-structured review was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Searches were conducted of three databases, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, in addition to the references from the eligible papers. The papers were considered to be eligible if they were relevant English articles or reviews that were published from January 2010 to June 2021. The searches were conducted using three groups of keywords, and bibliometric analysis was performed, followed by content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 163 papers that were published in impactful journals between January 2010 and June 2021 were selected. These papers were then reviewed, analyzed, and categorized as follows: descriptive analysis (n = 77), cause and effect (n = 12), interventions (n = 50), and quality management (n = 24). Six future research directions were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Minimal attention was given to the study of the primary referral of blood cancer cases versus those with solid cancer types, which is a gap that future studies should address. More research is needed in order to optimize the referral process, specifically for suspected hematological cancer patients.
Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , Neoplasms , Humans , Neoplasms/therapy , Referral and Consultation , Delivery of Health CareABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: User interfaces play a vital role in the planning and execution of an interventional procedure. The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of using different user interfaces for planning transrectal robot-assisted MR-guided prostate biopsy (MRgPBx) in an augmented reality (AR) environment. METHOD: End-user studies were conducted by simulating an MRgPBx system with end- and side-firing modes. The information from the system to the operator was rendered on HoloLens as an output interface. Joystick, mouse/keyboard, and holographic menus were used as input interfaces to the system. RESULTS: The studies indicated that using a joystick improved the interactive capacity and enabled operator to plan MRgPBx in less time. It efficiently captures the operator's commands to manipulate the augmented environment representing the state of MRgPBx system. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates an alternative to conventional input interfaces to interact and manipulate an AR environment within the context of MRgPBx planning.
Subject(s)
Augmented Reality , Surgery, Computer-Assisted , Biopsy , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Prostate/surgeryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of RHR's efficiency and safety, in addition to comparison between open and laparoscopic techniques. METHODS: A literature review was conducted from 2000 to 2020 including studies reporting on their centre's outcomes for robotic hernial repairs. A meta-analysis was conducted. For continuous data, Mantel-Haenszel chi-squares test was used and inverse variance was used for dichotomous data. RESULTS: In total, 19 studies were included. A total of 8987 patients were treated for hernia repairs, 4248 underwent open repairs, 2521 had robotic repairs and 1495 had laparoscopic repair. Cumulative analysis of robotic series: The overall average operative time was 90.8 min (range 25-180.7 min). The overall conversation rate was 0.63% (10/1596). The overall complication rate was 10.1% (248/2466). The overall recurrence rate was 1.2% (14/1218). Readmission rate was 1.6% (28/1750). Comparative meta-analysis outcomes include robotic versus open and robotic versus laparoscopic. Robotic versus open: The robotic group had significantly longer operative times and less readmission rates. There was no difference between the two groups regarding complications, post-operative pain occurrence and hernia recurrence rates. Robotic versus laparoscopic: The robotic group had significantly longer operative times and less complications. There was no difference regarding post-operative pain occurrence, hernia recurrence rates or readmission rates. CONCLUSION: Robotic hernia repair is a safe and efficient technique with minimal complications and a short learning curve; however, it remains inferior to the standard open technique. It does, however, have a role in minimally invasive technique centres. A multicentre randomized control trial is required comparing robotic, open and laparoscopic techniques.
