A Simulator for Teaching Transrectal Ultrasound Procedures How Useful and Realistic Is It?

Introduction: We describe a new simulator for teaching transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and present the results of a preliminary evaluation of the simulator's realism and usefulness for training. Methods: A simulator for abdominal ultrasound was adjusted by the developer to enable simulation of TRUS by providing an opening for inserting a dummy rectal probe. To enable TRUS simulation, data from ultrasound prostate imaging of eight real patients obtained with our regular ultrasound machine were transferred to the simulator by connecting the computer of the simulator to the ultrasound machine. These data were used to create images in the TRUS simulator. Residents and urologists used the simulator to perform TRUS in one of the eight patient cases and judged the simulator's realism and usefulness. Results: We were able to construct an initial urological module for the TRUS simulator. The images shown on the monitor of the simulator are quite realistic. The simulator can be used without difficulty to collect data, to create cases, and to perform TRUS. The absence of an option for prostate biopsy and the lack of tissue resistance were mentioned as two important shortcomings. Forty-seven participants rated the simulator's overall realism and usefulness for training purposes as 3.8 (standard deviation: 0.7) and 4.0 (standard deviation: 0.8) on a five-point Likert scale, respectively. Conclusions: The simulator we describe can be used as a training tool for TRUS. It enables training with different patient cases and minimizes the burden to patients. Simulation of prostate biopsies should be added to increase the model's usefulness

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p<0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons