Exploring Decisional Conflict Experienced by Individuals Considering Metoidioplasty and Phalloplasty Gender-affirming Surgery.

Background: Metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender-affirming surgery (MaPGAS) is increasingly performed and requires patients to make complex decisions that may lead to decisional uncertainty. This study aimed to evaluate decisional conflict in individuals considering MaPGAS.

Methods: We administered a cross-sectional survey to adult participants assigned female sex at birth and considering MaPGAS, recruited via social media platforms and community health centers.

Implementation of a geriatric in-reach service improves acute surgical unit outcomes; a retrospective before-and-after study.

Background: Australia's ageing population is challenging for surgical units and there is a paucity of evidence for geriatric co-management in acute general surgery. We aimed to assess if initiating a Geriatric Medicine in-reach service improved outcomes for older adults in our Acute Surgical Unit (ASU).

Methods: The Older Adult Surgical Inpatient Service (OASIS) was integrated into ASU in 2021.

Synchronous intussusception with primary neuroendocrine tumour in an adult.

Intussusception in adults is rare. There are only a few cases in the literature that report two lead points resulting in double or synchronous intussusception. We present a case of synchronous intussusception in a 45 year old man with neuroendocrine tumour of the ileocaecal valve and lipomatous polyp of the jejunum.

Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

The process of peer review has been the gold standard for evaluating medical science, but significant pressures from the recent COVID-19 pandemic, new methods of communication, larger amounts of research, and an evolving publication landscape have placed significant pressures on this system. A task force convened by the American College of Cardiology identified the 5 most significant controversies associated with the current peer-review process: the effect of preprints, reviewer blinding, reviewer selection, reviewer incentivization, and publication of peer reviewer comments. Although specific solutions to these issues will vary, regardless of how scientific communication evolves, peer review must remain an essential process for ensuring scientific integrity, timely dissemination of information, and better patient care.