Surgeon Experience as a Risk Factor for Short-Term Failure for Ab Interno Gelatin Microstent: A Canadian Multicenter Propensity-Matched Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of early versus later ab interno gelatin microstent placement with mitomycin C. DESIGN: Canada-wide, multicenter, retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred seventy eyes (135 early cases and 135 later cases) with no prior incisional surgery. METHODS: Surgeons' first 20 patients (early cases group), from 6 glaucoma surgeons across 4 Canadian sites, were matched 1:1 to patients with the closest propensity score from the later (21+) patients (later cases group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was hazard ratio (HR) of failure of the early versus later cases groups, with failure defined as IOP of less than 6 mmHg with more than 2 lines of vision loss or more than 17 mmHg with no medications (complete success) on 2 consecutive visits despite in-clinic maneuvers (including needling) more than 1 month after surgery. Secondary outcomes were HRs for failure, defined as IOP outside the range of 6 to 14 mmHg and 6 to 21 mmHg with and without allowing for medications (qualified success), interventions, complications, and reoperations. RESULTS: Hazard ratio of failure for early versus later cases groups was 1.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.96) for the IOP range of 6 to 17 mmHg, 1.29 (95% CI, 0.90-1.84) for 6 to 14 mmHg, and 1.48 (95% CI, 1.03-2.13) for 6 to 21 mmHg without medication and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.55-1.64), 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61-1.48), and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.52-1.75) for the same IOP ranges allowing for medications. Needling rates were 43.0% (early cases group) and 41.5% (later cases group). Complication rates after 1 month occurred in 9.6% (early cases group) and 11.1% (later cases group; P = 0.69). Reoperation rates were 14.8% (early cases group) and 8.1% (later cases group; P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence for improved success in the later cases group. Similar needling rates, similar complication rates, and a slightly higher reoperation rate were found for the early cases group. The results suggest that this procedure can be adopted by existing surgeons with current training regimens, although they may see an improvement in their success outcomes over time.

Does spaced education improve clinical knowledge among Family Medicine residents? A cluster randomized controlled trial.

Spaced education is a learning strategy to improve knowledge acquisition and retention. To date, no robust evidence exists to support the utility of spaced education in the Family Medicine residency. We aimed to test whether alerts to encourage spaced education can improve clinical knowledge as measured by scores on the Canadian Family Medicine certification examination. METHOD: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to empirically and pragmatically test spaced education using two versions of the Family Medicine Study Guide mobile app. 12 residency training programs in Canada agreed to participate. At six intervention sites, we consented 335 of the 654 (51%) eligible residents. Residents in the intervention group were sent alerts through the app to encourage the answering of questions linked to clinical cases. At six control sites, 299 of 586 (51%) residents consented. Residents in the control group received the same app but with no alerts. Incidence rates of case completion between trial arms were compared using repeated measures analysis. We linked residents in both trial arms to their knowledge scores on the certification examination of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. RESULTS: Over 67 weeks, there was no statistically significant difference in the completion of clinical cases by participants. The difference in mean exam scores and the associated confidence interval did not exceed the pre-defined limit of 4 percentage points. CONCLUSION: Further research is recommended before deploying spaced educational interventions in the Family Medicine residency to improve knowledge.