Surgical Skills Day: Bridging the Gap.

Background The General Medical Council (GMC) requires all newly qualified doctors to be competent in certain surgical skills, including the provision of basic wound closure. Yet there is a profound lack of undergraduate competence in, and exposure to, basic surgical skills such as wound closure. The Surgical Skills Day (SSD) aimed to provide medical students with additional skills training. Methods Student self-assessment and instructors' assessment forms were completed prior to and following a workshop on basic wound closure skills. Paired t-tests was used to statistically compare the two pre and post-instruction data sets. Results A total of 46 students attended the SSD; 29 consented to the skills assessment. 100% (n = 29) self-reported improved competency in at least one of the skills following tuition (p < 0.001). Instructors' assessment agreed that 100% (n = 29) of students improved in at least one of the skills assessed (p < 0.001). 100% of the attendees agreed that additional practical surgical skills should be incorporated into the undergraduate curriculum. 64% (n = 21) of students also confirmed that they were more likely to pursue a career in surgery following the SSD. Conclusion Current clinical teaching in basic suturing is unsuitable for long term retention. SSDs can improve skills acquisition and elevate student confidence. This data builds on our previous work by documenting the high efficacy in skills acquisition as a result of SSD tuition. We recommend that SSDs be integrated into medical school curricula in order to address shortcomings in current undergraduate programmes.

Noninvasive and alternative management of chronic low back pain (efficacy and outcomes).

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this article is to provide a thorough literature review of available noninvasive and alternative treatment options for chronic low back pain. In particular, the efficacy of each therapy is evaluated and pertinent outcomes are described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search for available literature was done through PubMed and Cochrane data base for topics discussed in this paper. RESULTS: Relevant current and past references were reviewed and presented to reflect the efficacy of each therapy and related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There are a wide variety of noninvasive and alternative therapies for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Those with the strongest evidence in the literature for good efficacy and outcomes include exercise therapy with supervised physical therapy, multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation, and acupuncture. Therapies with fair evidence or moderately supported by literature include yoga, back schools, thermal modalities, acupressure, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. Those therapies with poor evidence or little to no literature support include manipulation, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, low-level laser therapy, reflexology, biofeedback, progressive relaxation, hypnosis, and aromatherapy. Providers delivering care for patients with chronic low back pain must carefully evaluate these available treatment options related to their efficacy or lack thereof as well as relevant outcomes.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation of the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system for the treatment of chronic pain and ischemic diseases: the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) evaluated evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of neurostimulation to treat chronic pain, chronic critical limb ischemia, and refractory angina and recommended appropriate clinical applications. METHODS: The NACC used literature reviews, expert opinion, clinical experience, and individual research. Authors consulted the Practice Parameters for the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain (2006), systematic reviews (1984 to 2013), and prospective and randomized controlled trials (2005 to 2013) identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Neurostimulation is relatively safe because of its minimally invasive and reversible characteristics. Comparison with medical management is difficult, as patients considered for neurostimulation have failed conservative management. Unlike alternative therapies, neurostimulation is not associated with medication-related side effects and has enduring effect. Device-related complications are not uncommon; however, the incidence is becoming less frequent as technology progresses and surgical skills improve. Randomized controlled studies support the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in treating failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. Similar studies of neurostimulation for peripheral neuropathic pain, postamputation pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and other causes of nerve injury are needed. International guidelines recommend spinal cord stimulation to treat refractory angina; other indications, such as congestive heart failure, are being investigated. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate neurostimulation is safe and effective in some chronic pain conditions. Technological refinements and clinical evidence will continue to expand its use. The NACC seeks to facilitate the efficacy and safety of neurostimulation.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: stimulation of the intracranial and extracranial space and head for chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has identified a need for evaluation and analysis of the practice of neurostimulation of the brain and extracranial nerves of the head to treat chronic pain. METHODS: The INS board of directors chose an expert panel, the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC), to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature, current research, and clinical experience and to give guidance for the appropriate use of these methods. The literature searches involved key word searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar dated 1970-2013, which were graded and evaluated by the authors. RESULTS: The NACC found that evidence supports extracranial stimulation for facial pain, migraine, and scalp pain but is limited for intracranial neuromodulation. High cervical spinal cord stimulation is an evolving option for facial pain. Intracranial neurostimulation may be an excellent option to treat diseases of the nervous system, such as tremor and Parkinson's disease, and in the future, potentially Alzheimer's disease and traumatic brain injury, but current use of intracranial stimulation for pain should be seen as investigational. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC concludes that extracranial nerve stimulation should be considered in the algorithmic treatment of migraine and other disorders of the head. We should strive to perfect targets outside the cranium when treating pain, if at all possible.