Kevin C. Conlon

Background: Clinical decision‐making (CDM) plays an integral role to surgeons work and has ramifications for patient outcomes and experience. The factors influencing a surgeons decision‐making and the utility of cognitive decisional short cuts used in CDM known as ‘heuristics’ remains unknown. The aim of this paper is to explore how general surgeons make decisions in high‐stake biliary tract clinical scenarios.Methods: This was a cross sectional survey comprising of two sections—a ‘demographics section’ and a ‘clinical vignettes section’. Participants were recruited by an email distributed by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Non‐parametric testing examined relationships and content analysis was applied for clinical reasoning.Results: 73 participants or 37.6% of the overall population completed the survey. 71.4% of these were male. Most (50%) were higher trainees with moderate levels of overall reflective practice in decision‐making. A majority of participants chose conservatively in high‐stake biliary tract clinical cases with disease factors (43.5%) weighted highest, followed by personal factors (41.1%) and patient factors (15.4%) in clinical reasoning. The presence of a ‘hook’ associated with commonly used heuristics did not significantly change decision‐making behaviour.Conclusion: In high‐stake scenarios, surgeons make conservative clinical decisions, predominantly dominated by disease and personal justifications. The utility of heuristics in lower‐stake scenarios should be explored regarding clinical decision‐making rationale and outcomes. Practitioners should consider use of patient factors in high‐stake decisions to enable shared decision‐making when appropriate which can reduce post‐decisional regret and support the vision of patient‐centred care.

Background: Current guidance for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (gNENs) recommends either resection of all visible lesions or selective resection of gNENs >10 mm. We adopt a selective strategy targeting lesions approaching 10 mm for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and provide surveillance for smaller lesions. Objectives: This study aimed to describe the incidence of type 1 gNENs requiring endoscopic/surgical resection and the risk of disease progression (both considered significant disease) on endoscopic surveillance. The secondary objective was to assess the risk factors for disease progression during surveillance and the incidence of gastric dysplasia/adenoma/adenocarcinoma. Methods: We collected consecutive patients with type 1 gNENs and obtained demographic and clinical data through the electronic patient record. Results: In our cohort of 57 patients, 12 patients had EMR at index gastroscopy; 7 patients had surgery (4: large/multiple gNENs and 3: nodal metastases) (5.2% [3/57] risk of nodal metastases); and a patient with nodal and liver metastases (1.8% [1/57] risk of distant metastases). The prevalence of gastric adenocarcinoma in our study was 3.5% with an incidence rate of 9.59 per 1,000 persons per year. For patients undergoing surveillance, 29.5% (13/44) of patients progressed requiring resection. Serum gastrin was significantly higher in patients who progressed to resection (p value = 0.023). Conclusion: We concluded that up to a third of patients with type 1 gNENs have significant disease requiring resection. Hence, endoscopic surveillance and resect strategy would benefit patients.

Isolated pancreatic body transection secondary to blunt abdominal trauma is a very rare injury associated with poor outcomes. Almost all previously reported cases were managed by emergency distal pancreatectomy, which is associated with high morbidity and mortality. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of complete transection of the pancreas at the body that was successfully treated by conservative management in an adult patient. A 19-year-old male was found to have complete transection of the pancreatic body on computed tomography (CT) following blunt force abdominal trauma. Given that he was haemodynamically stable without evidence of haemorrhage or bile leakage on imaging, a trial of conservative management was initiated. He remained well through his admission, gradually improving clinically and biochemically with stable appearances on serial imaging. He remains asymptomatic as of six months since discharge from the hospital and continues to be monitored in the outpatient setting. Management of pancreatic trauma with ductal injury has typically been with emergency distal pancreatectomy, which is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The decision to operate should not be purely based on radiological findings, and should take into account clinical status, haemodynamic stability, coexisting injuries and evidence of active haemorrhage or bile leak. In select cases, it is reasonable to trial conservative management in isolated traumatic pancreatic body fracture by means of close clinical observation and serial imaging. This may allow the patient to avoid a high-risk emergency distal pancreatectomy.