Teaching undergraduate students gynecological and obstetrical examination skills: the patient's opinion

Introduction Our study assesses the patients’ opinion about gynecological examination performed by undergraduate students (UgSts). This assessment will be used in improving our undergraduate training program. A positive opinion would mean a lower chance of a patient refusing to be examined by a tutor or student, taking into account vaginal examination (VE). Materials and methods We performed a prospective cross-sectional survey on 1194 patients, consisting of outpatient and inpatient at the departments of obstetrics and gynecology from November 2015 to May 2016. The questionnaire consisted of 46 questions. Besides demographic data, we assessed the mindset of patients regarding the involvement of undergradu ate student (UgSt) in gynecological and obstetrical examinations. We used SPSS version 23 for the statistical analysis. For reporting the data, we followed the STROBE statement of reporting observational studies. Results The median age was 38 years having a median of one child. 34% presented due to obstetrical problems, 38% due to gynecological complaints, and 19% due to known gynecological malignancies. Generally, we retrieved a positive opinion of patients towards the involvement of students in gynecological and obstetrical examination under supervision in 2/3 of the cases. Conclusions There is no reason to exclude medical UgSts from gynecological and obstetrical examinations after obtaining a written or oral consent

Intraoperative and postoperative complications of gynecological laparoscopic interventions: incidence and risk factors

Purpose The aims of this study were to determine the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications of laparoscopic gynecological interventions and to identify risk factors for such complications. Methods All patients who underwent laparoscopic interventions from September 2013 to September 2017 at the Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Reproductive Medicine, Saarland University Hospital were identified retrospectively using a prospectively compiled clinical database. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for intra- and postoperative complications. Results Data from 3351 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, 188 (5.6%) intraoperative and 219 (6.5%) postoperative complications were detected. On multivariate analysis, age [odds ratio (OR), 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–1.04], surgery duration (OR, 1.02; 95% CI 1.02–1.03), carbon dioxide use (OR, 0.99; 95% CI 0.99–1.00), and surgical indication (all p ≤ 0.01) were independent risk factors for intraoperative and duration of surgery (OR, 1.01; 95% CI 1.01–1.02; p ≤ 0.01), carbon dioxide use (OR, 0.99; 95% CI 0.99–1.00; p ≤ 0.01), hemoglobin drop (OR, 1.41; 95% CI 1.21–1.65; p ≤ 0.01), and ASA status (p = 0.04) for postoperative complications. Conclusion In this large retrospective analysis with a generally low incidence of complications (5.6% intraoperative and 6.5% postoperative complications), a representative risk collective was identified: Patients aged > 38 years, surgery duration > 99 min, benign or malignant adnex findings were at higher risk for intraoperative and patients with surgery duration > 94 min, hemoglobin drop > 2 g/dl and ASA status III at higher risk for postoperative complications

Methods for selecting the best evidence to inform a NICE technology appraisal on selective internal radiation therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma

Background: Systematic reviews of medical devices are particularly challenging as the quality of evidence tends to be more limited than evidence on pharmaceutical products. This article describes the methods used to identify, select and critically appraise the best available evidence on selective internal radiation therapy devices for treating hepatocellular carcinoma, to inform a technology appraisal for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Methods: A comprehensive search of ten medical databases and six grey literature sources was undertaken to identify studies of three devices (TheraSphere®, SIR-Spheres® and QuiremSpheres®) for treating hepatocellular carcinoma. The large evidence base was scoped before deciding what level of evidence to include for data extraction and critical appraisal. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using criteria relevant to each study design. Results: Electronic searches identified 4755 records; over 1000 met eligibility criteria after screening titles and abstracts. A hierarchical process was used to scope these records, prioritising comparative studies over non-comparative studies, where available. 194 full papers were ordered; 64 met the eligibility criteria. For each intervention, studies were prioritised by study design and applicability to current UK practice, resulting in 20 studies subjected to critical appraisal and data extraction. Only two trials had a low overall risk of bias. In view of the poor quality of the research evidence, our technology appraisal focused on the two higher quality trials, including a thorough critique of their reliability and generalisability to current UK practice. The 18 poorer quality studies were briefly summarised; many were very small and results were often contradictory. No definitive conclusions could be drawn from the poorer quality research evidence available. Conclusions: A systematic, pragmatic process was used to select and critically appraise the vast quantity of research evidence available in order to present the most reliable evidence on which to develop recommendations