Even short-term training improves the skills of novice exoscope users: a prospective laboratory experiment.

BACKGROUND: The surgical 3D exoscopes have recently been introduced as an alternative to the surgical microscopes in microneurosurgery. Since the exoscope availability is still limited, it is relevant to know whether even a short-term exoscope training develops the skills needed for performing exoscope-assisted surgeries. METHODS: Ten participants (six consultants, four residents) performed two laboratory bypass test tasks with a 3D exoscope (Aesculap Aeos®). Six training sessions (6 h) were performed in between (interval of 2-5 weeks) on artificial models. The participants were divided into two groups: test group (n = 6) trained with the exoscope and control group (n = 4) with a surgical microscope. The test task was an artificial end-to-side microsurgical anastomosis model, using 12 interrupted 9-0 sutures and recorded on video. We compared the individual as well as group performance among the test subjects based on suturing time, anastomosis quality, and manual dexterity. RESULTS: Altogether, 20 bypass tasks were performed (baseline n = 10, follow-up n = 10). The median duration decreased by 28 min and 44% in the exoscope training group. The decrease was steeper (29 min, 45%) among the participants with less than 6 years of microneurosurgery experience compared to the more experienced participants (13 min, 24%). After training, the participants with at least 1-year experience of using the exoscope did not improve their task duration. The training with the exoscope led to a greater time reduction than the training with the microscope (44% vs 17%). CONCLUSIONS: Even short-term training with the exoscope led to marked improvements in exoscope-assisted bypass suturing among novice microneurosurgeons. For the more experienced participants, a plateau in the initial learning curve was reached quickly. A much longer-term effort might be needed to witness further improvement in this user group.

IV Thrombolysis vs Early Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Mild Noncardioembolic Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES: It is unclear whether IV thrombolysis (IVT) outperforms early dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in the acute setting of mild ischemic stroke. The aim of this study was to compare the early safety and efficacy of IVT with that of DAPT. METHODS: Data of mild noncardioembolic stroke patients with admission NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score ≤3 who received IVT or early DAPT in the period 2018-2021 were extracted from a nationwide, prospective stroke unit registry. Study endpoints included symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), early neurologic deterioration ≥4 NIHSS points (END), and 3-month functional outcome by modified Rankin scale (mRS). RESULTS: A total of 1,195 mild stroke patients treated with IVT and 2,625 patients treated with DAPT were included. IVT patients were younger (68.1 vs 70.8 years), had less hypertension (72.8% vs 83.5%), diabetes (19% vs 28.8%), and a history of myocardial infarction (7.6% vs 9.2%), and slightly higher admission NIHSS scores (median 2 vs median 1) when compared with DAPT patients. After propensity score matching and multivariable adjustment, IVT was associated with sICH (4 [1.2%] vs 0) and END (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-7.5), and there was no difference in mRS 0-1 at 3 months (aOR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7-2.6). DISCUSSION: This analysis from a prospective nationwide stroke unit network indicates that IVT is not superior to DAPT in the setting of mild noncardioembolic stroke and may eventually be associated with harm. Further research focusing on acute therapy of mild stroke is highly warranted. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that IVT is not superior to DAPT in patients with acute mild (NIHSS score ≤3) noncardioembolic stroke. The study lacks the statistical precision to exclude clinically important superiority of either therapy.