Raeburn, Kazzara

ABSTRACT Prolonged operative time is associated with increased surgical complications, resource utilization, and cost. While factors such as surgeon experience and patient habitus are well recognized, the impact of anatomical anomalies and variations remains poorly quantified. This systematic review evaluates the influence of abdominal structural anomalies and anatomical variations on operative time. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a search of PubMed (2000–2025) identified 82 eligible studies. Operative‐time impact was assessed using added operative time relative to reference benchmarks. The unit of analysis was the procedure‐level observation. Observations were stratified by procedure category and surgical complexity and summarized using median added operative time and range. Among procedure‐level observations with available benchmarks, 13 of 14 (92.9%) structural anomalies, 48 of 54 (88.9%) situs inversus cases, and 10 of 11 (90.9%) other anatomical variants demonstrated increased operative time relative to baseline. Structural anomalies were associated with larger median increases, particularly in colorectal procedures, whereas anatomical variations demonstrated a more heterogeneous effect across procedural systems. Higher‐complexity procedures, including pancreatic operations, showed greater absolute increases in operative time. Preoperative identification of anatomical differences was associated with attenuation of operative delays. Structural anomalies are frequently associated with increased operative duration, whereas anatomical variations demonstrate a more variable and context‐dependent effect. The magnitude of operative time impact is influenced by procedural complexity and preoperative planning. Incorporating anatomical variability into surgical planning may reduce avoidable operative delays and improve operative efficiency.

ABSTRACT At the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists (AACA) in Bellevue, Washington, June 2025, two inaugural events—the Clinical Anatomy Fireside Chat (CAFC) and the Clinical Anatomy Symposium: Head and Neck 2025 (CAS)—fostered rich dialogue on the evolving role and operational definition of clinical anatomy. Experts from various clinical and anatomical disciplines explored the meaning of clinical anatomy, highlighting the absence of a universal definition despite its frequent use in education and research. Through these interdisciplinary discussions, a consensus emerged: clinical anatomy is not defined solely by the possession of clinical credentials but by the integration of anatomical knowledge and clinical relevance, achieved most effectively through collaboration. Clinical anatomy education and research require different depths of clinical knowledge depending on the audience and objective, and meaningful collaboration can bridge gaps in expertise. The symposium further illustrated that high‐quality clinical anatomy emerges from mutual respect and reciprocal insight between clinicians and anatomists. This article presents a consensus statement developed by AACA representatives and invited speakers, affirming that collaboration is not only foundational to the practice of clinical anatomy but also fundamental to its definition. These conclusions aim to guide future educational models, research strategies, and interdisciplinary partnerships in the field of clinical anatomy.