Dyadic practice for the acquisition of laparoscopic skills (DALS)-A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic simulation is integral to surgical education but requires significant resources. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of dyadic practice (DP), involving two individuals working together, to individual practice (IP) for novices acquiring laparoscopic skills and assess their learning experience. METHODS: We conducted a Randomized Controlled Trial comparing DP and IP for novice medical students who completed a laparoscopic simulation workshop. Participants were assessed individually pre-course (test 1), post-course (test 2), and 8-week retention (test 3) using a validated quantitative method. A post-course questionnaire and interview, analyzed with thematic analysis, assessed the learning experience. RESULTS: In total, 31 DP and 35 IP participants completed the study. There was no difference in mean scores between DP and IP groups in all three tests: test 1 (p = 0.55), test 2 (p = 0.26), test 3 (p = 0.35). In trend analysis, the DP group improved post-course (test 1 vs. 2: p = 0.02) and maintained this level at the retention test (2 vs. 3: p = 0.80, 1 vs. 3: p = 0.02). Whilst the IP group also improved post-course (test 1 vs. 2: p < 0.001), this improvement was not retained (2 vs. 3: p = 0.003, 1 vs. 3: p = 0.32). Thematic analysis revealed that DP participants valued peer support, peer feedback and observation time, but also acknowledged the limitations of reduced practical time and issues with teamwork. CONCLUSION: DP is non-inferior to IP for novices learning laparoscopic skills, is well received and may lead to superior long-term skill retention.

Evaluation of a novel home-based laparoscopic and core surgical skills programme (Monash Online Surgical Training).

INTRODUCTION: Limitations to surgical education access were exacerbated during the COVID-19 Pandemic. In response, we created a national home-based comprehensive surgical skills course: Monash Online Surgical Training (MOST). Our aim was to evaluate the educational impact of this approach. METHODS: A remote, 6-week course was designed with learning objectives aligned to the national surgical training. Participants received a personal laparoscopic bench trainer, instrument tracking software, live webinars, access to an online theoretical learning platform, and individualised feedback by system-generated or expert surgeons' assessments. Mixed method analysis of instrument tracking metrics, pre- and post-course questionnaires (11 core surgical domains) and participant comments was utilised. Data were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test, and a p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 54 participants with varied levels of experience (1 to > 6 years post-graduate level) completed MOST. All 11 learning-outcome domains demonstrated statistically significant improvement including core laparoscopic skills (1.4/5 vs 2.8/5, p < 0.0001) and handling laparoscopic instruments (1.5/5 vs 2.8/5, p < 0.0001). A total of 3460 tasks were completed reflecting 158.2 h (9492 min) of practice, 394 were submitted for formal feedback. Participants rated the course (mean 8.5/10, SD 1.6), live webinars (mean 8.9/10, SD 1.6) and instrument tracking software (mean 8.6, SD 1.7) highly. Qualitative analysis revealed a paradigm shift including the benefits of a safe learning environment and self-paced, self-directed learning. CONCLUSION: The MOST course demonstrates the successful implementation of a fully remote laparoscopic simulation course which participants found to be an effective tool to acquire core surgical skills.

Safety Considerations for the Use of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as Treatment for Coma Recovery in People With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: For persons in states of disordered consciousness (DoC) after severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), we report cumulative findings from safety examinations, including serious adverse events (AEs) of a repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) parameter protocol in 2 different studies. PARTICIPANTS: Seven persons in states of DoC after sTBI with widespread neuropathology, but no large lesions in proximity to the site of rTMS. One participant had a ventriculoperitoneal shunt with programmable valve. METHODS: Two clinical trials each providing 30 rTMS sessions to the right or left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, involving 300 to 600 pulses over 1 or 2 sessions daily. One study provided concomitant amantadine. Safety indicators monitored related to sleep, temperature, blood pressure, skin integrity, sweating, weight loss, infections, and seizure. RESULTS: Average changes for monitored indicators were of mild severity, with 75 nonserious AEs and 1 serious AE (seizure). The participant incurring a seizure resumed rTMS while taking antieplieptics without further seizure activity. CONCLUSIONS: Considering elevated risks for this patient population and conservative patient selection, findings indicate a relatively safe profile for the specified rTMS protocols; however, potential for seizure induction must be monitored. Future research for this population can be broadened to include patients previously excluded on the basis of profiles raising safety concerns.