36th Annual Meeting

Experimental surgical:

• Animal models
• Cardiovascular
• General, soft tissue
• Orthopedic
• Dermatological
• Ophthalmic
• Transplantation
• Education, policy, ethics, or regulation
• Other

Scientific Sessions

Scientific sessions will be presented on Thursday, September 17 and Friday, September 18. Here are some guidelines to help in your preparation of Scientific Abstracts for platform or poster presentations. Abstracts must be limited to a total of 500 words. Text and authors information should be entered into the fields below. Make sure all contact information is provided for the presenting author. Please email the Abstract Committee for any special accommodations needed.

Abstracts accepted for presentation will be published electronically in the Journal of Investigative Surgery, the official journal of the Academy of Surgical Research unless authors opt-out.

• All abstracts should have a title and be approximately 500 words.
• Information regarding the number of animals on study should be included where appropriate
• Surgical procedures should be summarized if applicable
• Anesthetic regimen should be described and include dosages
• Intra/post-operative complications (or the absence of) should be described
• Description of pain management should be included (dose/route/frequency)
• Statistical methods/results
• Should be formatted into the following four sections: Introduction, Methods, Results and Conclusion

Topic Lectures and Panel Discussion

A topic lecture is a formal presentation given by a single speaker on a specific topic. A panel discussion would be given by multiple speakers around the same topic. This could be an area of expertise, an area of refinement or improvement, tips on a new or existing procedure, etc.. This should fit into a 30 minute session (25 minutes + 5 min Q&A) or please specify if additional time is needed.

Submission should include:

• Title
• Description
• What participants will learn
• Target audience
• Name of all participants and facilitator

Workshops and Wet/Dry Labs

These offer participants an opportunity for hands-on experience or to spend more time on a particular topic of interest. Time allotments may vary but these are typically planned for 30 minutes or more. Leaders will work closely with the Program Chair to help further develop the curriculum and ensure proper equipment is available, if needed. Leaders may recruit additional people to facilitate or teach these classes based on knowledge and expertise.

Submission should include:

• Title
• Description
• What participants will learn
• Target audience
• Ideal audience size or number of spaces
• Time requirement
• Any equipment/supplies needed
• Sponsor (if any)

Important Dates and general information

The abstracts will be reviewed and later published in the meeting materials, if accepted.

Abstract Submission Deadline: August 14, 2020

Abstract Guidelines

• Abstracts will be accepted in English only.
• There is no fee for submitting an abstract.
• The abstract text body is limited to 3,000 characters (Approx. 500 words) including spaces. A maximum of two figures/images (in JPG, GIF, or PNG with ideally 600 dpi) can be included. These will not count toward the word limit, nor will the information about authors, institutions and study groups. File size of 2 MB maximum for each figure.
• Abstracts accepted for presentation will be published electronically in the Journal of Investigative Surgery, the official journal of the Academy of Surgical Research unless authors opt-out.
• Ensure that all co-authors approve of the abstract submission, publication, and potential presentation.

Scientific Abstract

Should be formatted into the following four sections

• Introduction: clarifies the motivation for the research presented.
• Methods provides sufficient detail for others to reproduce what is studied in the research project.
• Results presents and discusses the results.

Conclusion

Should present the outcome of the work by interpreting the findings and by relating these findings to the motivation stated in the Introduction. Explain the significance of your findings / outcomes and future implications of the results.

Copyright Policy

Abstracts should not include libelous or defamatory content. Material presented in abstracts should not violate any copyright laws.

Ethics Compliance

Scientific studies and clinical activities should be performed in keeping with the ethical principles delineated in the following policy documents:
Institutional Ethical Review for human and/or animal research as appropriate

Abstract Review

• All submitted abstracts will go through a peer-review process carried out by a review committee.
• All abstracts will be reviewed by at least two referees, selected by the scientific program committee.
• Scores assigned by all reviewers are averaged. The cut-off average score for acceptance is based on available oral and poster presentations. Rejections are further evaluated by the scientific program committee.
• Poster and oral presentations are viewed as equally important components of the ASR meeting.

Format of presentation

You may opt to submit your abstract to be considered for an oral presentation, a poster presentation, or either (at the committee’s discretion)

Notification of Acceptance or Rejection to Corresponding Author

Notification of acceptance or rejection will be sent to the submitting (corresponding) author by August 21, 2020. Please note that only the corresponding author will receive mail concerning the abstract and is responsible for informing all co-authors of the status of the abstract. Authors whose abstracts have been accepted will receive instructions for the presentation of their abstract.

Proposed Abstract Formats

Oral Presentation 30 minutes (25 min + 5 min Q&A)
Poster on display from September 17-18

Please view the following resource [PDF]:

Manual On Efficiently Writing Competitive Research Abstracts For Surgical Journals

Examples:

Evaluating the timing and severity of surgical complications after (procedure) List of authors

Introduction
Complications following (procedure) are well-described, however the timing and severity is unclear. Our objective was to characterize and evaluate the median time-to-event for postoperative complications associated with (procedure).

Methods
We performed a retrospective review of (animals) undergoing (procedure) from (YYYY-YYYY). The anesthetic and analgesic protocol included (brief description drug, dose, route). A (procedure) was performed (brief description). We investigated complications occurring after (procedure) and characterized severity using the Accordian Severity Grading System as well as days from operation to complication to define early (0-15 days) and late complications (16-30 days).

Results
A total of (## animals, age weight) underwent (procedure), all animals recovered following surgery. (##%) of (animals) experienced a complication within 30 days, with (##%) of (animals) experiencing 2 or more complications. Of animals who had at least 1 complication, most (##%) had their first within 15 days and these were categorized as mild. Complications related to the surgical site (e.g. infection, dehiscence) were most likely to occur between (##-## days) post-procedure. (##) Severe complications included (base on procedure e.g sepsis, reop,) were likely to occur between (##-##) days post-procedure.

Conclusions
The majority of complications after (procedure) and mild and occur within the first 15 days. Site-related complications occurred early while severe complications occurred several (days, weeks earlier, later, or similarly). Knowledge regarding timing of postoperative complications may better inform refinement measures for perioperative practices and postoperative follow-up.

Surgical technique 1 Compared to Surgical technique 2 
List of authors

Introduction
Description of the surgical problem and goal for translation to the clinical patient. In this analysis we compare the outcomes of animals who underwent surgical procedure for problem using either technique 1 or 2.

Methods
From (date) to (date) we performed (##, surgery) using technique 1 (##animals, demographic) or 2 (##animals, demographic). Technique 1 description. Technique 2 description.

Results
Surgical procedure was successful in (##%) using technique 1 and (##%) using technique 2. In both groups, (observations in common). (Surgical outcome measures…) were (equivalent, superior, inferior and why). Duration of procedure was (min) using technique 1 versus (min) technique 2.

Conclusions
In this study we demonstrated improved survival and shorter surgical duration after technique 1 compared with technique 2. Provide a recommendation as it relates to model and any perceived limitations.