Comparison of atrial fibrillation ablation using cryoballoon versus radiofrequency in patients with left common pulmonary veins: mid-term follow-up results.

PURPOSE: Cryoballoon (CB) and radiofrequency (RF) ablation techniques have similar outcomes for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there is limited data about the impact of different ablation strategies in patients with left common pulmonary vein (LCPV). Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of RF and CB ablation in AF patients with LCPV. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-seven (n = 80 CB and n = 47 RF) AF patients with LCPV detected by preprocedural computerized tomography (CT) were included in the study. Ostial dimensions and trunk distance were measured in all patients. Atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATa) recurrence was defined as detection of AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia (≥ 30 s) after a 3-month blanking period. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in acute procedural success rates for PVI (97.5% in CB and 97.9% in RF, respectively, P = 0.953) and complication rates were similar between the groups (6 (7.5%) in CB and 4 (8.5%) in RF, respectively, P = 1.000). During a median follow-up of 20.7 (4.8-50.2) months for CB and 20.5 (6.2-36.0) months for RF, ATa recurrence was 35.0% and 38.2%, respectively (P = 0.777). Multivariate analysis did not reveal any of the morphologic parameters of LCPV as a significant predictor of ATa recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated that both CB and RF ablation techniques have similar efficacy and safety in AF patients with LCPV during the mid-term follow-up.

Cadaver versus simulator based arthroscopic training in shoulder surgery

Introduction: There are few studies that compare the cadaver dissections with the medical simulators in means of talent improvement. Therefore, the aim of this study is to find out if using cadaver dissections is still the golden standard for surgical training or using the medical simulators in surgery could replace cadaver dissections. Materials and methods: The study is conducted during the European Orthopaedics & Traumatology Education Platform accredited Shoulder Club International Cadaver Course including a number of 34 orthopedics trainees. The participants were randomly divided into two groups to be trained with the simulator (Group 1) and on cadavers (Group 2), followed by a test performed on shoulder arthroscopy simulator (Virtamed ArthroS, Switzerland). There was no conflict of interest before, during, or after the study. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Results: Group 2 had statistically significant higher simulation overview procedure time values than Group 1 (p < 0.05), the meaning of which is participants trained with the simulator completed the given tasks in a shorter period of time. Group 2 had statistically significant higher scratching of humerus cartilage values than Group 1 (p < 0.05), which means that participants trained with simulation have less scratching done on the humerus cartilage than the participants trained on a cadaver. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first one to compare virtual reality (VR) simulators with cadavers for surgical education in an objective manner, while using qualitative and quantitative data. According to this study, it is possible to state that VR simulators are just as effective as cadavers in means of training subjects. As medical education will face a total change all around the world after the COVID-19 pandemic, this study has the potential to be an important guide during and after this period.