The Role of Augmented Reality in Surgical Training: A Systematic Review.

This review aims to provide an update on the role of augmented reality (AR) in surgical training and investigate whether the use of AR improves performance measures compared to traditional approaches in surgical trainees.PUBMED, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, British Library and Science Direct were searched following PRIMSA guidelines. All English language original studies pertaining to AR in surgical training were eligible for inclusion. Qualitative analysis was performed and results were categorised according to simulator models, subsequently being evaluated using Messick's framework for validity and McGaghie's translational outcomes for simulation-based learning.Of the 1132 results retrieved, 45 were included in the study. 29 platforms were identified, with the highest 'level of effectiveness' recorded as 3. In terms of validity parameters, 10 AR models received a strong 'content validity' score of 2.15 models had a 'response processes' score ≥ 1. 'Internal structure' and 'consequences' were largely not discussed. 'Relations to other variables' was the best assessed criterion, with 9 platforms achieving a high score of 2. Overall, the Microsoft HoloLens received the highest level of recommendation for both validity and level of effectiveness.Augmented reality in surgical education is feasible and effective as an adjunct to traditional training. The Microsoft HoloLens has shown the most promising results across all parameters and produced improved performance measures in surgical trainees. In terms of the other simulator models, further research is required with stronger study designs, in order to validate the use of AR in surgical training.

Open Primary Button Versus Laparoscopic Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: Results From a Case-control Study.

OBJECTIVES: Open primary balloon gastrostomy (PBG) presents a potential alternative to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in children as it obviates the need for change under general anaesthetic; however, the complication profile of PBG compared to PEG is not well defined. Previous series comparing the two have been hampered by the groups not being equivalent. Our paediatric surgical centre has offered PBG as an alternative PEG since 2014. We used a matched case-control study to compare outcomes for PBG and PEG. METHODS: Patients undergoing PBG were used as "cases" and matched 1:3 by age and diagnosis to patients undergoing PEG, demographics, and clinical data as "controls." Primary outcome was rate of complications classified according to Clavien-Dindo (I-V). Secondary outcomes included time to feed and length of stay. Non-parametric, categorical and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. Data here presented as median with interquartile range (IQR). RESULTS: We included 140 patients (35 PBG:105 PEG). The 2 groups were comparable for sex, weight at surgery, and follow-up duration. Median operative time was longer for PBG (43 min [IQR 36.5-61.5] vs 27.5 min [18.25-47.75], P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated a statistically significant, higher incidence of symptomatic granulation tissue in PBG (10 [29%] vs 6 [6%], P = 0.0008), this remained significant on multivariate analysis (OR 7.56 [2.33-23.5], P = 0.001), no other complication remained significant. The overall complication rate was not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: PBG and PEG have similar overall complication rates; however, PBG appears to have a higher incidence of granulation tissue. This observation must be weighed against the need for further general anaesthetic which is not insignificant in medically complex children.