Background/Objectives: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can develop after exposure to real or perceived threats to life and is characterized by symptoms including intrusive thoughts, hyperarousal, and emotional numbness. While PTSD is well-studied in populations affected by disasters and combat, the impact of serious medical conditions like cancer and its treatments remain under-researched. Due to the aggressive nature of the disease, fear of recurrence, and disfiguring nature of treatments, patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) may experience a real or perceived risk of death. This systematic review synthesizes current knowledge on PTSD in patients with HNC. Methods: A systematic review was conducted per PRISMA guidelines. Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and COCHRANE) were searched for studies describing PTSD in patients with and survivors of HNC. Studies with PTSD diagnosis and/or symptom data specific to patients with HNC were included. Results: Of 80 studies, 14 met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly used scale was the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version. The prevalence of PTSD ranged from 8% to 41% across the studies. No significant differences were found with regards to PTSD prevalence by HNC tumor site, disease stage, or treatment modality. Two studies identified significant associations between PTSD after treatment and depression at the time of diagnosis. Patients with PTSD who received cognitive behavioral therapy showed improvement in their PTSD symptoms compared to those who did not. Conclusions: PTSD is common in individuals with HNC; however, the lack of a standardized approach to diagnosing PTSD in patients with and survivors of HNC creates challenges in identifying patients who may benefit from treatment. Given that HNC is the seventh most common cancer worldwide, with increasing incidence, there is a need to better understand the relationship between HNC and PTSD to allow for better PTSD screening, identification, and treatment to improve patients’ health-related quality of life and provide optimal patient care.

Objective: To determine the current scope of knowledge regarding ambient listening artificial intelligence (AI) tools for documentation in surgical clinical environments. Data Sources: Literature search was performed using EMBASE, PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases. Citation searching was utilized to identify additional studies. Methods: A scoping review regarding the use of ambient dictation artificial intelligence in clinical note generation in surgery was performed per PRISMA‐ScR guidelines. Two reviewers independently performed title and abstract screening, full‐text review, and data extraction. Inclusion criteria included studies describing the use of ambient listening AI tools for the generation of clinical documentation for surgery, with full‐text available, in English or English‐language translation. Results: Of 252 studies identified through database and citation searching, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Narrative reviews were most common ( n = 8), followed by scoping reviews ( n = 1), systematic reviews ( n = 1), primary research ( n = 1), and expert commentary ( n = 1). Three studies provided original data: the primary research and expert commentary focused on the use of AI scribing technology in urology, and one narrative review also included survey data regarding the implementation of AI scribing in hand surgery. All three sources found positive clinician feedback following the implementation of AI scribing technology. All review articles meeting inclusion criteria expressed positive views regarding the implementation of AI scribing technology in surgical subspecialties, though most relied on sources describing AI scribing in nonsurgical subspecialties. Conclusion: Documentation burden is a common contributor to clinician burnout in the medical field. AI scribing technologies have the potential to promote clinic efficiency and decrease documentation burden. The current research landscape regarding the implementation of these tools in surgical specialties is sparse and warrants further primary research in the future.