Citations

Context.— Treatments are available for common forms of systemic amyloidosis that show promise for extending and improving the quality of life for patients. Early diagnosis and accurate identification of amyloid fibril type are crucial for successful treatment, but the diagnosis and workup of amyloidosis is inconsistent among pathologists and laboratories. Thus, the goal of this guideline is to offer recommendations for proper testing and workup for amyloidosis to optimize patient care. Objective.— To establish evidence-based recommendations for appropriate laboratory testing to detect amyloidosis and identify the specific amyloidogenic protein. Design.— The College of American Pathologists convened a panel of experts to develop recommendations following the standards established by the National Academy of Medicine for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The panel conducted a systematic literature review addressing 6 key questions. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework, recommendations were created based on the available evidence, certainty of that evidence, and key judgments as defined in the framework. Results.— Four conditional recommendations and 3 good practice statements were established to provide guidance for proper testing and workup of amyloidosis. Conclusions.— This guideline summarizes the available evidence on the diagnosis and workup of systemic amyloidosis in tissue samples, including the challenges and limitations of common approaches and techniques. Recommendations for pathologists and laboratories receiving these samples are provided.

Background Recent studies suggest that general surgery (GS) residents perform more operations related to their future specialty compared with their peers. In this multi-institutional study, we examined the process of early specialization among GS residents pursuing a career in vascular surgery (VS). Methods Data from the US Resident OPerative Experience (ROPE) Consortium, comprising 20 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited GS residency programs across the United States, were queried. Case volume and type were compared between GS residents pursuing vs fellowship and all other residents. Effect size was evaluated using Cohen’s d statistic. Effect size was considered large if d > 0.8, moderate if 0.5 ≤ d < 0.8, small if 0.2 ≤ d < 0.5, and inconsequential if d < 0.2. Results A total of 1343 GS residents graduated from 2010-2020 across all programs participating in ROPE, of which 135 (10.1%) pursued vs fellowship. Total major vascular case volume was significantly greater among residents pursuing vs fellowship (138 [100-207] vs 100 [80-139], P < 0.0001) with a large effect size (d = 1.81). Vascular cases reported in a surgeon chief role (27 [9-53] vs 10 [2-29], P < 0.0001, d = 0.76, moderate effect) and surgeon junior role (107 [79-154] vs 88 [62-118], P < 0.0001, d = 1.00, large effect) were also greater among GS residents pursing a vs specialty. Nearly all vascular operative categories demonstrated similar trends ( P < 0.01 each). Conclusions GS residents pursuing a vs fellowship perform more vascular cases compared with their peers. Given the differences in both surgeon chief and surgeon junior roles, career focus may begin as early as the junior resident years.

Background: The potential long-term effects of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection on the brain structure have not yet been fully elucidated. Even though existing studies have reported structural changes in the post-COVID-19 period, the results remain highly inconsistent and controversial. As such, identifying an imaging biomarker for post-COVID brains is still under investigation. This review aims to comprehensively summarize the structural MRI (sMRI) studies that focus on volumetric brain changes at least two weeks following COVID-19 infection. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar up to 9 September 2025. Studies that utilized sMRI to assess volumetric brain changes post-COVID at greater than two weeks following infection were included. Exclusion criteria encompassed research involving pediatric or adolescent populations and imaging modalities other than sMRI. Preprints, reviews, case reports, case series and post-mortem studies were also excluded. Results: Forty-one studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and consisted of 2895 patients and 1729 healthy controls. Despite the wide variability in image acquisition protocols, data processing methods, and comorbidities between studies, multiple studies reported statistically significant volumetric reductions in the hippocampus, amygdala, thalamus, basal ganglia, nucleus accumbens and the cerebellum months to years after infection, especially in older hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Conclusions: The emerging literature reports long-term volume changes across various brain regions in individuals previously infected with COVID-19; however, the evidence is inconsistent. Specific imaging biomarkers following exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection and the underlying mechanisms of these changes are yet to be identified. Future studies with harmonized imaging protocols, longitudinal designs, and integrated biomarker and clinical data are needed to define robust biomarkers and elucidate the pathophysiology of these findings.

ABSTRACT Central venous catheters (CVCs) are a cornerstone of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), facilitating the delivery of chemotherapy, parenteral nutrition, medications, and blood products. Despite CVCs’ essential role, prolonged use can lead to complications such as increased risk of infection, thrombosis, mechanical issues, and psychosocial burden. However, the timing of CVC removal remains highly variable across institutions. Additionally, there are no standardized guidelines to balance the benefits of extended access against the risks of prolonged use. This narrative review examines the existing literature on CVC management post‐HSCT, highlighting key factors influencing the removal timing, such as patient characteristics, disease‐specific considerations, and institutional practices. The review emphasizes the urgent need for multi‐institutional research and standardized protocols to improve outcomes, reduce complications, and enhance the quality of care for HSCT patients.

Global surgical collaboration presents opportunities for knowledge exchange, but it also highlights the inequities that influence how surgery is practiced across different contexts. As a Latino surgeon trained in a high-income country, I reflect on my experience at a multidisciplinary, Spanish-language conference in Mexico City that brought together over 600 participants from Mexico and six Latin American countries. The program spanned cholecystectomy, bariatric surgery, hepatology, anesthesia, and interventional radiology, with survey results showing that 87% of attendees reported increased knowledge and 98% intended to apply new practices. Yet, financial constraints, limited time, and lack of institutional support remained significant barriers. For me, the experience was both professional and deeply personal. Teaching exclusively in Spanish affirmed cultural belonging and highlighted language as a tool of equity. At the same time, it underscored the systemic nature of barriers in low- and middle-income countries, where adopting new techniques depends not only on interest or skill but on resources, infrastructure, and institutional support. Standing at the intersection of privilege and solidarity, I felt both pride in contributing and discomfort at the inequities that persist. This reflection suggests that global surgical engagement must move beyond episodic exchanges toward sustained, equitable partnerships that are linguistically accessible, culturally grounded, and structurally supported. Surgery itself exists in two worlds, the technical and the systemic. Embracing that duality can strengthen our collaborations and shift the measure of surgical impact from the number of cases completed to the number of bridges built.

Purpose Hip arthroscopy is a minimally invasive procedure which has been increasingly used among athletes for several hip joint related pathologies as it allows for a faster recovery. However, objective return to sport criteria have not been described previously among this population. Objective To systematically review the literature to evaluate and describe the objective return-to-sport (RTS) criteria to release patients back to sport following hip arthroscopy. Methods We conducted a comprehensive literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included in the review if patients underwent a hip arthroscopy procedure and the study described criteria for their patients to RTS. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion and extracted study characteristics and objective RTS criteria. Results Of the 306 that were a part of our original search, 6 studies fit our inclusion criteria. There were 250 athletes (average age: 26.1) and 263 hips which underwent hip arthroscopy surgery. Of these athletes, the cohort was on average 46.5% female and an average of 91.2% of athletes returned to sport about 6 months following surgery. The primary sports these athletes participated in were soccer, swimming, skiing/snowboarding, and hockey. The objective RTS measures that were generally described included sport specific tests, range-of-motion, hip strength, and performance-based criteria. Conclusion There are minimal studies who described objective RTS criteria to release patients back to sport following hip arthroscopy procedures. Sports specific tests, hip strength, and performance-based criteria were mentioned as objective criteria to release patients back to sport.

Background Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is a well-established treatment for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion (LVO). However, its role in cervical artery dissection-related (CeAD) LVO remains debated due to anatomical complexities and procedural challenges. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of MT in patients with AIS due to CeAD-related LVO compared with other AIS etiologies. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception to March 2025. Comparative observational studies evaluating the use of MT in adult patients with AIS due to LVO were included, specifically those comparing outcomes in patients with CeAD versus non-CeAD etiologies. Results MT for CeAD-related AIS showed no statistically significant difference in successful recanalization compared with non-CeAD cases (OR 0.81 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.04), P=0.10). However, patients with CeAD-related AIS had significantly higher rates of 90-day functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0–2) (OR 2.17 (95% CI 1.55 to 3.05), P<0.01) and lower 90-day mortality (OR 0.34 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.53), P<0.01). Rates of distal embolization (OR 1.60 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.70), P=0.27), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.38), P=0.49), or iatrogenic dissection (OR 1.58 (95% CI 0.59 to 4.22), P=0.36) did not differ significantly between patient groups. Conclusions MT in patients with CeAD-related LVO is safe, effective, and associated with improved functional outcomes and lower mortality compared with patients with non-CeAD acute ischemic causes.