Vascular e-Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The EL-COVID Survey.

BACKGROUND: The corona virus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has radically changed the possibilities for vascular surgeons and trainees to exchange knowledge and experience. The aim of the present survey is to inventorize the e-learning needs of vascular surgeons and trainees as well as the strengths and weaknesses of vascular e-Learning. METHODS: An online survey consisting of 18 questions was created in English, with a separate bilingual English-Mandarin version. The survey was dispersed to vascular surgeons and trainees worldwide through social media and via direct messaging from June 15, 2020 to October 15, 2020. RESULTS: Eight hundred and fifty-six records from 84 different countries could be included. Most participants attended several online activities (>4: n = 461, 54%; 2-4: n = 300, 35%; 1: n = 95, 11%) and evaluated online activities as positive or very positive (84.7%). In deciding upon participation, the topic of the activity was most important (n = 440, 51.4%), followed by the reputation of the presenter or the panel (n = 178, 20.8%), but not necessarily receiving accreditation or certification (n = 52, 6.1%). The survey identified several shortcomings in vascular e-Learning during the pandemic: limited possibility to attend due to lack of time and increased workload (n = 432, 50.5%), no protected/allocated time (n = 488, 57%) and no accreditation or certification, while technical shortcomings were only a minor problem (n = 25, 2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic vascular e-Learning has been used frequently and was appreciated by vascular professionals from around the globe. The survey identified strengths and weaknesses in current e-Learning that can be used to further improve online learning in vascular surgery.

Dataset of the vascular e-Learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (EL-COVID) survey.

This dataset supports the findings of the vascular e-Learning during the COVID-19 pandemic survey (the EL-COVID survey). The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union was taken into consideration in all steps of data handling. The survey was approved by the institutional ethics committee of the Primary Investigator and an online English survey consisting of 18 questions was developed ad-hoc. A bilingual English-Mandarin version of the questionnaire was developed according to the instructions of the Chinese Medical Association in order to be used in mainland People's Republic of China. Differences between the two questionnaires were minor and did affect the process of data collection. Both questionnaires were hosted online. The EL-COVID survey was advertised through major social media. All national and regional contributors contacted their respective colleagues through direct messaging on social media or by email. Eight national societies or groups supported the dissemination of the EL-COVID survey. The data provided demographics information of the EL-COVID participants and an insight on the level of difficulty in accessing or citing previously attended online activities and whether participants were keen on citing these activities in their Curricula Vitae. A categorization of additional comments made by the participants are also based on the data. The survey responses were filtered, anonymized and submitted to descriptive analysis of percentage.

Long-term outcome of femoral above-knee popliteal artery bypass using autologous saphenous vein versus expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts.

Despite a recent flurry of publications on preferred techniques for femoral above-knee popliteal artery bypass, controversy persists over the use of autologous saphenous vein and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) grafts. The purpose of this study was to compare our long-term results using these two bypass materials. In a series of 474 infrainguinal bypasses performed between January 1993 and December 1998, we performed a total of 75 femoral above-knee popliteal artery bypass using an autologous saphenous vein graft in 48 cases (64%) and an ePTFE graft in 27 cases (36%). Prosthetic grafts were used by choice in 17 cases and by necessity due to the absence of useable vein in 10 cases. There were 55 men and 18 women with a mean age of 70 years. The indication for bypass was lower extremity arterial occlusive disease at stage II in 17 cases (22.7%), stage III in 9 cases (12%), and stage IV in 36 cases (48%); subacute ischemia in 8 cases (10.7%); and femoropopliteal aneurysm in 5 cases (6.7%). Preoperative arteriography demonstrated three patent leg arteries in 15.5% of cases, two patent leg arteries in 43.5%, and one patent leg artery in 41%. There was no significance difference between the vein graft and ePTFE graft groups with regard to indications and arteriographic findings. No patient died during the immediate postoperative period. The mean duration of follow-up was 25.5 months (range, 3 to 108 months). The primary patency rate at 4 years was 82.2 +/- 8% for venous bypass vs. 80.6 +/- 11.8% for ePTFE bypass (p = 0.42). The secondary patency rate at 4 years was 84.7 +/- 7.4% for vein bypasses and 79.5 +/- 12% for ePTFE bypasses (p = 0.26). In our experience, there was no statistically significant difference in long-term outcome of femoral above-knee popliteal artery bypass using autologous vein grafts or prosthetic ePTFE grafts.