ABSTRACT
When feasible from an oncologic standpoint, partial penectomy (PP) is often preferred to total penectomy (TP) for penile cancer treatment, for the preservation of functional urinary outcomes. However, to date, there has not been a direct comparison of perioperative outcomes between PP and TP. Comparing treatments for penile cancer has proven difficult due to the rarity of penile cancer in the United States. We aimed to report differences in pre-operative risk factors, intra-operative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes between TP and PP for penile cancer. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we conducted a retrospective cohort review of penile cancer patients enlisted in the database between the years 2006-2016 using the International Classification of Diseases clinical modification 9th revision codes. A total of 260 patients, 67 TP and 193 PP patients, were included. PP patients were less likely to be transferred patients (p = 0.002), diabetic (p = 0.026), and were more likely to have preoperative laboratory values within normal limits. PP patients also had shorter lengths of stay in the hospital (p < 0.001) and operating time (p < 0.001). Significant differences were also found for inpatient stay (p < 0.001), 30-day post-surgery complications (p < 0.001), deep incisional surgical site infection (SSI) (p = 0.017), wound disruption (p = 0.017), intraoperative or postoperative transfusion (p = 0.029), and sepsis (p < 0.005). Finally, PP patients required fewer concurrent surgical procedures (p < 0.001). Demographic differences between PP and TP patients may reflect patients presenting with more advanced oncologic disease. PP is associated with fewer postoperative complications, shorter surgeries, shorter hospital stays, fewer concurrent surgical procedures, and comorbid conditions compared to TP. A gap remains in the reported data pertaining to postoperative sexual function and erectile outcomes for PP at a national level.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Clinical documentation is a critical aspect of health care that enables healthcare providers to communicate effectively with each other and maintain accurate patient care records. Artificial intelligence tools, such as chatbots and virtual assistants, have the potential to assist healthcare providers in clinical documentation. ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence conversational model that generates human-like responses to text-based prompts. In this study, we sought to investigate ChatGPT's ability to assist with writing a history of present illness based on standardized patient histories. METHODS: A blinded, randomized controlled study was conducted to compare the use of typing, dictation, and ChatGPT as tools to document history of present illness (HPI) of standardized patient histories. Eleven study participants, consisting of medical students, orthopaedic surgery residents, and attending surgeons, completed three HPIs using a different documentation technique for each one. Participants were randomized into cohorts based on the type of documentation technique. Participants were asked to interview standardized patients and document the patient's history of present illness using their assigned method. RESULTS: ChatGPT was found to be intermediate for speed; dictation was fastest, but produced markedly longer and higher quality patient histories based on Physician Documentation Quality Instrument score compared with dictation and typing. However, ChatGPT included erroneous information in 36% of the documents. Poor agreement existed on the quality of patient histories between reviewers. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that ChatGPT has the potential to improve clinical documentation by producing more comprehensive and organized HPIs. ChatGPT can generate longer and more detailed documentation compared with typing or dictation documentation methods. However, additional studies are needed to investigate and address concerns regarding privacy, bias, and accuracy of information.
