Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the gold-standard approach for cholecystectomy, has surprisingly variable outcomes and conversion rates. Only recently has operative grading been reported to define disease severity and few have been validated. This multicentre, multinational study assessed an operative scoring system to assess its ability to predict the need for conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. A prospective, web-based, ethically approved study was established by WSES with a 10-point gallbladder operative scoring system; enrolling patients undergoing elective or emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy between January 2016 and December 2017. Gallbladder surgery was considered easy if the G10 score < 2, moderate (2 ≦ 4), difficult (5 ≦ 7) and extreme (8 ≦ 10). Demographics about the patients, surgeons and operative procedures, use of cholangiography and conversion rates were recorded. Five hundred four patients, mean age 53.5 (range 18–89), were enrolled by 55 surgeons in 16 countries. Surgery was performed by consultants in 70% and was elective in (56%) with a mean operative time of 78.7 min (range 15-400). The mean G10 score was 3.21, with 22% deemed to have difficult or extreme surgical gallbladders, and 71/504 patients were converted. The G10 score was 2.98 in those completed laparoscopically and 4.65 in the 71/504 (14%) converted. (p < 0.0001; AUC 0.772 (CI 0.719–0.825). The optimal cut-off point of 0.067 (score of 3) was identified in G10 vs conversion to open cholecystectomy. Conversion occurred in 33% of patients with G10 scores of ≥ 5. The four variables statistically predictive of conversion were GB appearance—completely buried GB, impacted stone, bile or pus outside GB and fistula. The G10 operative scores provide simple grading of operative cholecystectomy and are predictive of the need to convert to open cholecystectomy. Broader adaptation and validation may provide a benchmark to understand and improve care and afford more standardisation in global comparisons of care for cholecystectomy.

Background: Cancer outcomes are complex, involving prevention, early detection and optimal multidisciplinary care. Postoperative infection and surgical site-infection (SSI) are not only uncomfortable for patients and costly, but may also be associated with poor oncological outcomes. A meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the oncological effects of SSI in patients with colorectal cancer. Methods: An ethically approved PROSPERO-registered meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between 2007 and 2017 reporting the effects of postoperative infective complications on oncological survival in colorectal cancer. Results were separated into those for SSI and those concerning anastomotic leakage. Articles with a Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score of at least 18 were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals were computed for risk factors using an observed to expected and variance fixed-effect model. Results: Of 5027 articles were reviewed, 43 met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 154 981 patients. Infective complications had significant negative effects on overall survival (HR 1·37, 95 per cent c.i. 1·28 to 1·46) and cancer-specific survival (HR 2·58, 2·15 to 3·10). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 7·4 per cent and had a significant negative impact on disease-free survival (HR 1·14, 1·09 to 1·20), overall survival (HR 1·34, 1·28 to 1·39), cancer-specific survival (HR 1·43, 1·31 to 1·55), local recurrence (HR 1·18, 1·06 to 1·32) and overall recurrence (HR 1·46, 1·27 to 1·68). Conclusion: This meta-analysis identified a significant negative impact of postoperative infective complications on overall and cancer-specific survival in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

There is currently a lack of an efficient, objective and systemic approach towards the classification of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), due to its complex etiology and pathogenesis. As AD is inherently dynamic, it is also not clear how the relationships among AD indicators vary over time. To address these issues, we propose a hybrid computational approach for AD classification and evaluate it on the heterogeneous longitudinal AIBL dataset. Specifically, using clinical dementia rating as an index of AD severity, the most important indicators (mini-mental state examination, logical memory recall, grey matter and cerebrospinal volumes from MRI and active voxels from PiB-PET brain scans, ApoE, and age) can be automatically identified from parallel data mining algorithms. In this work, Bayesian network modelling across different time points is used to identify and visualize time-varying relationships among the significant features, and importantly, in an efficient way using only coarse-grained data. Crucially, our approach suggests key data features and their appropriate combinations that are relevant for AD severity classification with high accuracy. Overall, our study provides insights into AD developments and demonstrates the potential of our approach in supporting efficient AD diagnosis.

Introduction: Hearing aid usage has been linked to improvements in cognition, communication, and socialization, but the extent to which it can affect the incidence and progression of dementia is unknown. Such research is vital given the high prevalence of dementia and hearing impairment in older adults, and the fact that both conditions often coexist. In this study, we examined for the first time the effect of the use of hearing aids on the conversion from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia and progression of dementia. Methods: We used a large referral‐based cohort of 2114 hearing‐impaired patients obtained from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center. Survival analyses using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model and weighted Cox regression model with censored data were performed to assess the effect of hearing aid use on the risk of conversion from MCI to dementia and risk of death in hearing‐impaired participants. Disease progression was assessed with Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR‐SB) scores. Three types of sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the results. Results: MCI participants that used hearing aids were at significantly lower risk of developing all‐cause dementia compared to those not using hearing aids (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.89; false discovery rate [FDR] P  = 0.004). The mean annual rate of change (standard deviation) in CDR‐SB scores for hearing aid users with MCI was 1.3 (1.45) points and significantly lower than for individuals not wearing hearing aids with a 1.7 (1.95) point increase in CDR‐SB per year ( P  = 0.02). No association between hearing aid use and risk of death was observed. Our findings were robust subject to sensitivity analyses. Discussion: Among hearing‐impaired adults, hearing aid use was independently associated with reduced dementia risk. The causality between hearing aid use and incident dementia should be further tested.