31 research outputs found

    Percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with monitored anesthesia care decreases operative time but not pulmonary complications

    No full text
    Objectives To report our experience and compare the results of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) performed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) to PEVAR under general anesthesia (GA). Methods A retrospective review of patients who underwent non-emergency endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) was completed. Patients were excluded if they had a complex repair, including fenestrated, branched, or parallel endografting. Demographics, operative data, 30-day mortality/morbidity and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Results A total of 159 patients were identified with a median age of 69. 115 patients had PEVAR, 45 (39.1%) PEVAR MAC and 70 (60.9%) PEVAR GA. PEVAR MAC compared to PEVAR GA had decreased operative time (106 vs. 134 min, P < 0.001), time in the operating room (163 vs. 245 min, P = 0.016), and estimated blood loss (EBL) (115 vs. 176 mL P = 0.012). There was no statistically significant difference in the hospital length of stay (LOS) (1.9 vs. 2.7 days, P = 0.133), and post-operative complications including pulmonary (2.2 vs. 2.9%, P = 0.835). Forty-four patients had EVAR with a femoral cutdown (FC), including 14 PEVAR conversions. PEVAR conversion was associated with higher EBL (543 vs. 323 mL, P = 0.03), operative time (230 vs. 178 min, P = 0.01), and operating room time (307 vs. 275 min, P = 0.01) compared to planned EVAR with FC. Conclusions PEVAR under MAC is associated with shorter time in the operating room compared to PEVAR under GA. PEVAR under MAC does however not decrease overall morbidities, including postoperative pulmonary complications

    Medical Student Education During COVID-19: Electronic Education Does Not Decrease Examination Scores

    No full text
    During the COVID-19 emergency, medical students were mandated to remain home, creating challenges to providing education remotely for third-year clinical rotations. This study aims to assess student reception and investigate objective outcomes to determine if online learning is a suitable alternative. Medical students enrolled in the third-year surgical clerkship during COVID-19 were asked to participate in a survey. 19 of 27 (70%) students participated. Content, faculty-led lectures, and resident-led problem-based learning (PBL) sessions were assessed using a ten-point Likert scale. National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) examination, weekly quiz, and oral examination scores were compared to previous years. Student -tests compared the groups. The median age was 25 years. Comparing in-person to electronic sessions, there was no difference in effectiveness of faculty sessions preparing students for NBME (6.2 vs. 6.7, = .46) or oral examinations (6.4 vs. 6.8, = .58); there was also no difference in resident-led PBL sessions preparing students for NBME (7.2 vs. 7.2, = .92) or oral examinations (7.4 vs. 7.6, = .74). Comparing this group to students from the previous academic year, there was no difference in weekly quiz (85.3 vs. 87.8, = .13), oral examination (89.8 vs. 93.9, = .07), or NBME examination (75.3 vs. 77.4, = .33) scores. Surgical medical didactic education can effectively be conducted remotely through faculty-led lectures and resident-led PBL sessions. Students did not have a preference between in-person and electronic content in preparation for examinations. As scores did not change, electronic education may be adequate for preparing students for examinations in times of crisis such as COVID-19
    corecore