Background: s/Aims: Assessing surgical difficulty in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is challenging due to variations in surgeon proficiency and institutional protocols. This study evaluates surgeons’ perspectives on procedural difficulty and examines how intraoperative findings and preoperative imaging contribute to refining difficulty assessment criteria. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 50 laparoscopic surgeons in India, providing insights into tolerances for surgical duration and blood loss, reasons for conversion, and predictors of complexity. Responses were analyzed using SPSS, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Results: Among surveyed surgeons, 82.0% were male, and 78.0% worked in private institutions and 52.0% had performed over 1,000 LCs. Conversion to open surgery was primarily influenced by significant blood loss (68.0%) and biliary injury (94.0%). While 38.0% preferred surgeries under 60 minutes, 26.0% imposed no time constraints. Key intraoperative challenges included dense adhesions, cholecysto-enteric fistulas, and fibrosis. Less experienced surgeons reported greater challenges with scarring adhesions and anatomical variations, but no significant differences were found for other factors like edematous or necrotic changes. Preoperative imaging was considered essential by most surgeons. Conclusions This study underscores the limited reliability of traditional parameters for assessing difficulty in LC. Surgeons highlighted the importance of objective intraoperative findings and preoperative imaging in predicting surgical challenges. Factors such as adhesions, fibrosis, and anatomical variations significantly impact LC difficulty, with decisions regarding conversion to open surgery largely driven by individual judgment rather than experience. Standardized grading systems incorporating these factors could improve surgical planning, reduce complications, and enhance patient outcomes.

Background: s/Aims: Assessing surgical difficulty in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is challenging due to variations in surgeon proficiency and institutional protocols. This study evaluates surgeons’ perspectives on procedural difficulty and examines how intraoperative findings and preoperative imaging contribute to refining difficulty assessment criteria. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 50 laparoscopic surgeons in India, providing insights into tolerances for surgical duration and blood loss, reasons for conversion, and predictors of complexity. Responses were analyzed using SPSS, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Results: Among surveyed surgeons, 82.0% were male, and 78.0% worked in private institutions and 52.0% had performed over 1,000 LCs. Conversion to open surgery was primarily influenced by significant blood loss (68.0%) and biliary injury (94.0%). While 38.0% preferred surgeries under 60 minutes, 26.0% imposed no time constraints. Key intraoperative challenges included dense adhesions, cholecysto-enteric fistulas, and fibrosis. Less experienced surgeons reported greater challenges with scarring adhesions and anatomical variations, but no significant differences were found for other factors like edematous or necrotic changes. Preoperative imaging was considered essential by most surgeons. Conclusions This study underscores the limited reliability of traditional parameters for assessing difficulty in LC. Surgeons highlighted the importance of objective intraoperative findings and preoperative imaging in predicting surgical challenges. Factors such as adhesions, fibrosis, and anatomical variations significantly impact LC difficulty, with decisions regarding conversion to open surgery largely driven by individual judgment rather than experience. Standardized grading systems incorporating these factors could improve surgical planning, reduce complications, and enhance patient outcomes.

Background: s/Aims: Assessing surgical difficulty in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is challenging due to variations in surgeon proficiency and institutional protocols. This study evaluates surgeons’ perspectives on procedural difficulty and examines how intraoperative findings and preoperative imaging contribute to refining difficulty assessment criteria. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 50 laparoscopic surgeons in India, providing insights into tolerances for surgical duration and blood loss, reasons for conversion, and predictors of complexity. Responses were analyzed using SPSS, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Results: Among surveyed surgeons, 82.0% were male, and 78.0% worked in private institutions and 52.0% had performed over 1,000 LCs. Conversion to open surgery was primarily influenced by significant blood loss (68.0%) and biliary injury (94.0%). While 38.0% preferred surgeries under 60 minutes, 26.0% imposed no time constraints. Key intraoperative challenges included dense adhesions, cholecysto-enteric fistulas, and fibrosis. Less experienced surgeons reported greater challenges with scarring adhesions and anatomical variations, but no significant differences were found for other factors like edematous or necrotic changes. Preoperative imaging was considered essential by most surgeons. Conclusions This study underscores the limited reliability of traditional parameters for assessing difficulty in LC. Surgeons highlighted the importance of objective intraoperative findings and preoperative imaging in predicting surgical challenges. Factors such as adhesions, fibrosis, and anatomical variations significantly impact LC difficulty, with decisions regarding conversion to open surgery largely driven by individual judgment rather than experience. Standardized grading systems incorporating these factors could improve surgical planning, reduce complications, and enhance patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: AND PURPOSE: To adequately evaluate the extent of neurocognitive impairment in patient living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV), a battery of neuropsychological tests is typically administered which are neither cost effective nor time efficient in the outpatient clinical setting. The aim of the study was to assess neurocognitive status and functional ability of people living with HIV and find a brief screening tool to identify those who would benefit from a full diagnostic evaluation. METHODS: The study enrolled 160 PLHIV (80 pre-antiretroviral therapy [ART] and 80 on ART) fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Neurocognitive assessment and an assessment of Functional ability was done by using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Lawton and Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale scale, respectively. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 75.6% males and 24.4% females with mean age of 44±10 years. The overall prevalence of HIV associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND) in the study subjects was 52.5%. Of these, 47.5% had asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment and 5% had minor neurocognitive disorder. In MoCA, the most frequently affected domains were Language (97.6%), visuospatial ability (92.9%) and memory (71.4%). CONCLUSIONS The prevalence of HAND in both groups were similar suggesting that neurocognitive impairment starts early in HIV infection. Memory and Visuospatial function impairment had the most predictive potential for detecting the presence of HAND. HAND screening is recommended in all PLHIV at enrolment into care. Simple tools like MoCA can be used in busy outpatient settings by healthcare workers to screen for HAND.