Acquisition of fundamental laparoscopic skills: Is a box really as good as a virtual reality trainer?

AbstractBackgroundLaparoscopic surgery requires working in a three-dimensional environment with a two-dimensional view. Skills such as depth perception, hand to eye co-ordination and bimanual manipulation are crucial to its efficacy.AimTo compare the efficiency of training in laparoscopic skills on a VR simulator with a traditional box trainer.MethodTwenty medical students were recruited. An initial training session on the relevant anatomy and steps of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy was given. Baseline skills were recorded using a pre-training laparoscopic cholecystectomy on the VR trainer. Parameters measured were: (1) total time taken (mins); (2) number of movements right and left instrument; (3) path length (cms) of right and left instrument was recorded.Ten students trained on a VR simulator, and ten on a box trainer, for three hours each. The box trainer group exercises were based on the Royal College of Surgeons core laparoscopic skills course, and the VR trainer exercises were based on the Simbionix LapMentor basic skills tasks. Following this both groups were reassessed by a laparoscopic cholecystectomy on the VR trainer.ResultsBoth groups showed improvement in all measured parameters. A student T-test at 95% confidence interval showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups pre and post training.ConclusionBoth the VR and box trainer are effective in the acquisition of laparoscopic skills

The impact of pre‐operative intravenous iron on quality of life after colorectal cancer surgery: outcomes from the intravenous iron in colorectal cancer‐associated anaemia (IVICA) trial

Anaemia is associated with a reduction in quality of life, and is common in patients with colorectal cancer . Werecently reported thefindings of the intravenous iron in colorectal cancer-associated anaemia (IVICA) trialcomparing haemoglobin levels and transfusion requirements following intravenous or oral iron replacement inanaemic colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery. In this follow-up study, we compared theefficacy of intravenous and oral iron at improving quality of life in this patient group. We conducted amulticentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Anaemic colorectal cancer patients were randomlyallocated at least two weeks pre-operatively, to receive either oral (ferrous sulphate) or intravenous (ferriccarboxymaltose) iron. We assessed haemoglobin and quality of life scores at recruitment, immediately beforesurgery and at outpatient review approximately three months postoperatively, using the Short Form 36,EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Anaemia questionnaires. Werecruited 116 anaemic patients across seven UK centres (oral iron n=61 (53%), and intravenous iron n=55(47%)). Eleven quality of life components increased by a clinically significant margin in the intravenous irongroup between recruitment and surgery compared with one component for oral iron. Median (IQR [range])visual analogue scores were significantly higher with intravenous iron at a three month outpatient review (oraliron 70, (60–85 [20–95]); intravenous iron 90 (80–90 [50–100]), p=0.001). The Functional Assessment ofCancer Therapy–Anaemia score comprises of subscales related to cancer, fatigue and non-fatigue itemsrelevant to anaemia. Median outpatient scores were higher, and hence favourable, for intravenous iron on theFunctional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Anaemia subscale (oral iron 66 (55–72 [23–80]); intravenous iron 71(66–77 [46–80]); p=0.002), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Anaemia trial outcome index (oral iron108 (90–123 [35–135]); intravenous iron 121 (113–124 [81–135]); p=0.003) and Functional Assessment ofCancer Therapy–Anaemia total score (oral iron 151 (132–170 [69–183]); intravenous iron 168 (160–174 [125–186]); p=0.005). Thesefindings indicate that intravenous iron is more efficacious at improving quality of lifescores than oral iron in anaemic colorectal cancer patients

Intraperitoneal drain placement and outcomes after elective colorectal surgery: international matched, prospective, cohort study

Despite current guidelines, intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery remains widespread. Drains were not associated with earlier detection of intraperitoneal collections, but were associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased risk of surgical-site infections.Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified