Student Acceptance of Virtual Bedside Surgical Tutorials During COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The social distancing recommendations from the WHO during the pandemic has resulted in a pivot point in the delivery of medical education. With the medical student clinical experience constantly under threat; novel methods to maintain adequate surgical patient exposure and student interaction on a platform amenable to the interactive format required were devised using a virtual platform to compliment current pedagogical approaches. METHODS: A parallel randomized controlled trial evaluated the perceived use of remote learning in place of bedside teaching. Participants were randomized to undergo surgical bedside teaching in person or virtually. Feedback questionnaires and exit interviews carried out following each session. Content analysis of transcripts was performed to evaluate the presence and quality of perceived learning, benefits and limitations to each modality. RESULTS: Feedback demonstrated greater engagement, satisfaction, involvement and learning (P < 0.001) in the bedside teaching group. Content analysis yielded three main themes; Technological, Interpersonal Component, Provision of Content. Participants in the virtual group reported a limited ability to elicit clinically relevant findings in surgical patients. Students however reported the virtual teaching was an acceptable method of learning with 90% satisfaction reported for learning via the virtual platform. DISCUSSION: The pandemic posed challenges to adequate student-patient exposure. Delivering surgical bedside teaching remotely is a method amenable to learning for students, with advantages including convenience, fewer reports of information fatigue, and decreased perceived pressure identified with this learning modality.

Acquisition of Surgical Skills in Medical Students via Telementoring: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pandemic related changes have radically altered the delivery of medical teaching. The practical skills of medicine which students should be proficient in at time of graduation have tended to require in-person tutelage, with reduced access resulting in the risk of skill deficits in newly qualified doctors. Small group teaching sessions are amenable to a virtual mode of delivery, with the ability of the virtual platform to confer practical skills unproven. The objective of the study was to evaluate the use of teleproctoring in acquisition of suturing skills in medical students. METHODS: This was a single blinded two- armed randomized control trial. Medical students undergoing clinical rotations in their penultimate and final years who were able to complete the suturing tutorial were invited to participate in this study. Control groups underwent conventional suturing training under direct supervision, with the interventional group undergoing the tutorial in a remote learning setting via live streaming. Pre- and post-test assessment was carried out using validated suturing Global Rating Scale tool. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants were recruited, with 23 participants completing the task. Adequacy of sampling was demonstrated in both groups using Box's M test (P = 0.9). Participants' individual and composite scores were comparable at baseline (P = 0.28) and following the tutorial (P = 0.52). Participants improved to a statistically significant degree regardless of method of teaching delivery, in all skill parameters (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Teleproctoring is an effective tool in the provision of teaching basic suturing skills in medical students. Research on its use in more complex practical skills is warranted.

Quality and reliability evaluation of current Internet information regarding mesh use in inguinal hernia surgery using HONcode and the DISCERN instrument.

INTRODUCTION: Mesh-related complications following pelvic prolapse surgery has potentiated societal fear and led to increased investigation into mesh use in inguinal hernia repair (IHR) surgery online. However concern exists regarding the quality of Internet health informatics. The DISCERN Instrument and HONcode  tool can be used to assess the quality and reliability of online health information. The aim of this study is to investigate the reliability and quality of online information pertaining to mesh use in IHR surgery using the DISCERN instrument and HONcode tool. METHODS: An Internet search using the keywords: 'mesh', 'inguinal hernia' and 'surgery' was carried out via Google, Yahoo, Bing, Facebook and Twitter. The HONcode and DISCERN scores were generated for each of the first ten search engine result pages (SERPs). RESULTS: Google provided the most reliable [Median HONcode score 77% (IQR 25.5%)] and highest quality information [Median DISCERN score; 61.5 (IQR 18.25)]. Social media yielded both the most unreliable and lowest quality information. Facebook was the most unreliable [Median HONcode score 21% (IQR 14.25%)], while Twitter imparted the lowest quality information [Median DISCERN score of 18.5 (IQR 25.25)]. DISCUSSION: A 2018 Cochrane review concluded the use of mesh in IHR to be safe and associated with superior outcomes. However, numerous SERPs present results contradicting this, based solely upon Level 5 evidence. Commercialisation of the Internet has resulted in search engine optimisation, which can permit lesser quality sites to obtain higher SERP ranking. Alarmingly  if only a limited search is carried out by patients [4], lower quality, sensationalist evidence may be the only information they are exposed to. As such this may negatively influence the patient decision-making process detrimentally. However utilisation of social media by healthcare professionals may offer a solution to bridge the gap between the public and high quality medical information. CONCLUSIONS: Online information regarding mesh repair of inguinal herniae is of variable quality and reliability. Enhanced quality assurance of online health information is necessary. However, increased presence by hernia societies on social media may help to disseminate high quality information to patients, thus enabling pre-hospital education to set the scene prior to formal hospital consultation.

In vivo assessment of cervical movement in surgeons-results from open and laparoscopic procedures.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain is commonly described in surgeons. Research suggests that 21-60% of at-risk physicians may experience significant work-related pain in their back, shoulders, neck or upper extremity and the consequences of this may impact negatively on patient care. Laparoscopic surgery in particular has become increasingly associated with musculoskeletal pain, especially in the cervical spine. Due to a number of constraints, however, it is difficult to evaluate musculoskeletal movement (particularly cervical spine motion) in the operating room environment. STUDY DESIGN: Three consultant general surgeons were fitted with an ambulatory strain gauge in an attempt to accurately measure and compare cervical motility during open and laparoscopic surgeries. Intraoperative figures pertaining to neck flexion, extension and rotation during forty surgical procedures were collected. The completed data consisted of twenty open and twenty laparoscopic procedures, and the results were compared. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction (21.38%) in measured neck movement in laparoscopic surgery when compared with open surgery p = 0.004 (Table 2). A standard deviation of 18.97 was computed for open surgery indicating a larger variability in results deviation from the mean when compared with a value of 8.92 for laparoscopic surgery. Mean rotational neck movement was also reduced during laparoscopic procedures (23.5%) when compared with open procedures (87.9%). CONCLUSION: Based on our results, we believe that laparoscopic surgery requires more prolonged periods of static neck posture when compared with open surgery. This difference may assist in understanding the contributing factors for musculoskeletal (in particular cervical) pain encountered in minimally invasive surgeons. Further investigation of static posture in the operating surgeon is warranted.

Three-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute and chronic cholecystitis.

BACKGROUND: Several modifications have been introduced to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The three-port technique has been practiced on a limited scale. Our aim was to compare the three-port and four-port LC in acute (AC) and chronic cholecystitis (CC). METHODS: The medical records of 495 patients who underwent LC between September 1999 and September 2003 were reviewed. Variables such as complications, operating time, conversion to open procedure, hospital stay, and analgesia requirements were compared. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-three patients underwent three-port LC and 212 patients underwent four-port LC. In total, 163 (32.9%) patients were diagnosed with AC and 332 (67.1%) with CC by histology. There was no statistical difference between the three and four-port groups in terms of complications, conversion to open procedure (p = 0.6), and operating time (p = 0.4). Patients who underwent three-port LC required less opiate analgesia (pethidine) than those who underwent four-port LC (p = 0.0001). The hospital stay was found to be related to the amount of opiates consumed (p = 0.0001) and was significantly shorter in the three-port LC group (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Three-port LC is a safe procedure for AC and CC in expert hands. The procedure offers considerable advantages over the traditional four-port technique in the reduction of analgesia requirements and length of hospital stay.

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Peptic ulcer disease and gallstones are common causes of upper abdominal pain. The benefits of routine gastrostroscopy before laparoscopic cholecystectomy have been controversial. Some cases of persistent abdominal pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy have been attributed to peptic ulcer disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the significance of preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We compared a group of patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy before laparoscopic cholecystectomy and a group of patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with no preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Postoperative residual abdominal pain, esophagogastroduodenoscopy findings, hospital stay, and other variables were examined. RESULTS: There were 400 patients in this study: 218 (54.5%) patients underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy while 182 (45.5%) did not. The mean age was 49.8 years, 311 were female and 89 were male patients. One hundred and twenty seven (31.7%) patients were diagnosed with acute cholecystitis and 273 (68.2%) were nonacute. In the esophagogastroduodenoscopy group, there were normal findings in 98 (45%) patients. Disorders such as hiatus hernia (21%), acute duodenal ulcers (3.6%), esophagitis (3.6%), gastric ulcer (0.4%), and Barrett's esophagus (0.4%) were among the findings. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was avoided in six patients with chronic cholecystitis. Preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy did not reduce the incidence of postoperative residual abdominal pain; in fact, patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy had longer hospital stays (P = 0.02). Unlike chronic cholecystitis, esophagogastroduodenoscopy did not change the course of the planned surgery in acute cholecystitis. CONCLUSION: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not have an impact on postoperative residual abdominal pain; however, it can disclose other gastroesophageal disorders with similar symptoms to gallstones and may change the course of the planned surgery in chronic cholecystitis.