Comparative study between minimally invasive supraorbital craniotomy and pterional craniotomy for treating anterior circulation cerebral aneurysms in a low-resource setting.

The challenges encountered in performing minimally invasive approaches, such as supraorbital minicraniotomy (SOMC), in services without adequate equipment are rarely reported in the literature. This study analyzes the viability of SOMC in the treatment of cerebral aneurysms, using exactly the same resources as pterional craniotomy (PC). The results of these two techniques are compared. 35 patients underwent SOMC, compared to 50 patients underwent CP (100 aneurysms in total), using the same microsurgical instruments. The following variables were compared: operative time, angiographic cure, length of intensive care unit stay during the post-operative period, surgical complications, length of hospital stay after surgery until hospital discharge, intraoperative aneurysm rupture, aesthetic satisfaction with the scar, and neurological status at discharge. SOMC had a significantly shorter operative time in relation to PC (213.9 ± 11.09 min and 268.6 ± 15.44 min, respectively) (p = 0.0081).With respect to the cosmetic parameters assessed by the Visual Analog Scale, the average for SOMC was 94.12 ± 1.92 points, and the average for PC was 83.57 ± 4.75 points (p = 0.036). SOMC was as effective as PC in relation to successful aneurysm clipping (p = 0.77). The SOMC technique did not show advantages over PC in any other variable. Even in a general neurosurgery service lacking a specific structure for minimally invasive surgeries, SOMC was feasible and effective for treating intracranial aneurysms, using the same set of microsurgical instruments used for PC, obtaining better results in operating time and cosmetic satisfaction.

Determinants of scholarly project completion in a paediatric resident program in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The primary aims of this study were to: 1) assess barriers and facilitators of completing scholarly projects from residents and faculty mentor perspectives, 2) determine the perceived value of new initiatives designed to support resident scholarly projects and 3) determine if these initiatives led to changes in resident publications. DESIGN AND METHODS: Between June and September 2014, we surveyed 18 paediatric residents and 41 faculty mentors regarding barriers to resident scholarly project completion and the value of new initiatives to support scholarly activity. We also tracked scientific publications by residents before and after implementation of these initiatives. RESULTS: The primary perceived barriers to research for residents and faculty were lack of protected time (64.3% versus 68.6%, respectively), lack of resident interest in scholarly activity (50.0% versus 60.0%, respectively) and lack of mentor motivation. Mentors and residents did not agree that lack of proper training in research (29% versus 54%, respectively) and faculty motivation (29% versus 17%, respectively) were barriers to completing a project. A dedicated research coordinator (71.4% versus 70.6%, respectively), a revised research curriculum (71.4% versus 41.2%, respectively) and works in progress sessions (50.0% versus 61.8%, respectively) were perceived as valuable initiatives to the program. These initiatives were not associated with changes in annual resident publication rates. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of time and competing clinical training are primary barriers to scholarly project completion for residents in addition to a lack of motivation on the part of faculty members. Improving program support was perceived as positive changes to address these barriers but did not increase resident publication rates. The information provided here could be used to tailor future resident research programs and highlight the value of gathering input from resident and faculty when designing initiatives to enhance resident research productivity.