Establishing the influence of case complexity on the order of cataract lists: a cross-sectional survey

ObjectiveOrder of the theatre list and complexity of the cases are important considerations which are known to influence surgical outcomes. This survey aimed to establish their influence on cataract surgery.Methods and AnalysisCataract surgeons ordered five cataract cases according to their surgical preference, first using case notes and second using composite ORs (CORs) for posterior capsule rupture. Descriptive and non-parametric statistics were used to analyse the data.ResultsBetween 11 June and 14 July 2020, 192 cataract surgeons from 14 countries completed the online survey. Majority of the surgeons (142 vs 50) preferred to choose the order of their list (p<0.01) and to review the case notes prior to the day of surgery (89 vs 53; p=0.04). 39.86% preferred to start with the less risky case and 32.43% reserved the last position on the list for the riskiest case. There was a significant trend to order the list in an ascending level of risk, independent of whether case notes or CORs were used. Additionally, 44.79% of the respondents indicated they would be happy to have their list order planned by an automated program based on their preferred risk score.ConclusionThis survey demonstrates that cataract surgeons prefer to choose the order of their theatre list and that the order is dependent on the complexity of cases. There is support among surgeons for automated list ordering based on an objective score for risk stratification, such as a COR.

Effectiveness of surgical residents compared to surgical faculty in teaching trauma evaluation and management

Introduction Senior medical students learn trauma principles in a 90-min interactive teaching session based on the trauma evaluation and management module designed by the American College of Surgeons. However, the number of surgical faculty available to conduct these interactive small group sessions is limited. The goal of this study is to compare the effectiveness of surgical residents to that of surgical faculty in teaching trauma principles. Methods 53 senior medical students received trauma teaching from trauma faculty ( n = 22), trauma residents ( n = 21), or no teaching ( n = 10). Students were tested on cognitive trauma knowledge (20 multiple choice questions) and clinical trauma simulation (using objective structured clinical performance score). All students completed a 5-point subjective questionnaire. Results Students receiving trauma teaching outperformed students receiving no teaching in the knowledge test (mean 13.0 ± 3.6 standard deviation (SD) vs. 8.4 ± 2.4 SD, p < 0.05), while faculty and resident teaching outcomes were similar (mean 12.6 ± 3.0 SD vs. 13.4 ± 4.1, p = 0.45). Similarly, in the clinical trauma simulation, students receiving trauma teaching scored better (objective score mean 78% vs. 56%, p < 0.05), while there was no difference between faculty and resident teaching outcomes (objective score mean 77% vs. 80%, p = 0.52). In the subjective questionnaire, students who received trauma teaching rated themselves higher on a scale of 10 in trauma knowledge and skills than those who did not have formal teaching (mean 5.2 vs. 2.1, p < 0.05) as resident and attending teaching group ratings were similar. Conclusions Although small group discussions and increased simulation enhance undergraduate surgical trauma education, the number of faculty surgeons needed to fully incorporate these activities is limited. Objective and perceived effectiveness of teaching trauma management by surgical residents compared to trauma attendings is equivalent. This highlights the opportunity to incorporate residents into teaching roles to bridge the gap in undergraduate trauma education.

Prologue

The book begins with three personal stories about the author’s early encounters with comparison, rating, and ranking. The stories demonstrate that ranking might reflect the reality of objectivity in certain cases, while in other cases objectivity is only an illusion. In addition, objectivity might even be manipulated. The first story tells why the only boy with a soccer ball in a grade-school class in postwar Budapest led his class’s popularity list. Then the author describes how subjective ratings of soccer players were aggregated to arrive at an “objective score” for each player at the end of the season. Finally, the author uses a folktale to show how the strongest member of a group can become a self-nominated judge and manipulate what ought to be a collective decision.

Bridge-Enhanced ACL Repair: Two Year Results of the First In Human Study

Objectives: The Bridge-Enhanced ACL Repair (BEAR) procedure is an alternate form of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery that involves suture repair of the ligament combined with a scaffold to bridge the gap between the torn ligament ends. In this paper, we report outcomes of this procedure and a non-randomized concurrent control group receiving ACL reconstruction with quadrupled hamstring tendon autograft. We hypothesized that patients treated with Bridge-Enhanced ACL Repair would have physical exam findings, patient reported outcomes and adverse events at one and two years that were similar to patients treated with ACL reconstruction. Methods: This was an observational cohort study. Twenty patients were enrolled. Ten patients received a Bridge-Enhanced ACL Repair (BEAR®) and 10 received a hamstring autograft ACL reconstruction. Outcomes were assessed at time points up to 2 years post-operatively, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Score, the IKDC Objective score, KT-1000 testing for AP laxity and functional testing. Results: There were no graft or repair failures in the first two years after surgery. The IKDC Subjective Scores in both groups improved significantly from baseline (p< 0.0001) but were similar in BEAR and ACL reconstruction groups at 12 and 24 months. An IKDC Objective score of A (normal) was found in 44% of the patients in the BEAR group and 29% of the patients in the ACL reconstruction group at two years; no patients in either group had a grade of C (abnormal) or D (severely abnormal). KT-1000 testing demonstrated a side to side difference that was similar in the two groups at 2 years (mean(±SD) 1.9(± 2.1) mm in the BEAR group, 3.1(± 2.7) mm in the ACLR group). Functional hop testing results were similar in the two groups at 1 and 2 years after surgery. Hamstring strength indices measured by dynamometer were significantly higher at all time points in the BEAR group than in the hamstring autograft group (mean percentages relative to contralateral side at two years, 98.6%(±10.5%) vs 56.3%(±19.0%), p=0.0001). Conclusion: In a small first-in-human study, Bridge-Enhanced ACL Repair produced similar outcomes to ACL reconstruction with autograft quadruple bundle hamstring tendon.

Comparison of Clinical Results, Second-Look Arthroscopic Findings, and MRI Findings Between the Transportal and Outside-In Techniques for Double-Bundle Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background: Although image analysis has shown that the outside-in (OI) technique is associated with different femoral tunnel geometry than the transportal (TP) technique in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, it is not known whether clinical results differ between the 2 techniques. Purpose: To compare clinical results, second-look arthroscopic findings, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings between the TP and OI techniques in anatomic double-bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: From November 2010 to March 2013, 128 patients were enrolled in this study and were randomly assigned to either the TP group (64 patients) or the OI group (64 patients), and DB ACL reconstructions were performed. At the minimum 2-year follow-up (34.9 ± 10.9 months), 111 patients (86.7%) were evaluated with multiple clinical scores and stability tests (KT-2000 arthrometer, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test). Ninety-three knees were evaluated for graft continuity, graft tension, and synovialization by use of second-look arthroscopy. Seventy-eight knees were evaluated on MRI for graft continuity, femoral graft tunnel healing, and graft signal/noise quotient (SNQ). The primary outcome was KT-2000 arthrometer results. Results were compared between the TP and OI groups. Results: No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of KT-2000 arthrometer results, which was the primary outcome, and other clinical results, with the exception of the postoperative functional test of International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective score. The ratio of grade A and B on the postoperative functional test of IKDC objective score was significantly larger for the OI group (51/58) than the TP group (36/53) ( P = .005). The second-look arthroscopic findings were not significantly different between the 2 groups in either bundle ( P > .05). In addition, MRI findings did not differ significantly between the 2 groups ( P > .05). Conclusion: With the exception of the functional test of IKDC objective score, we found that clinical results, second-look arthroscopic findings, and MRI findings did not differ significantly between the OI and TP techniques for anatomic ACL reconstruction, although femoral tunnel geometries differed significantly between the 2 techniques.

Meniscal Ramp Lesion Repair Using the FasT-Fix Technique: Evaluating Healing and Patient Outcomes with Second-Look Arthroscopy

Although the suture-hook technique remains popular for meniscal ramp lesions, which frequently occur after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, it is unclear whether the all-inside FasT-Fix technique (Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA) is appropriate for the repair of ramp lesions. This study evaluated results of arthroscopic FasT-Fix meniscal ramp lesion repair using second-look arthroscopy. From August 2010 to December 2014, 46 knees diagnosed with combined ACL injury and ramp lesion underwent ACL reconstruction with meniscal repair using the FasT-Fix technique. We classified ramp lesions into three types according to tear pattern: meniscotibial ligament tear, meniscocapsular tear, and combined meniscotibial/meniscocapsular tear. Second-look arthroscopy was performed postoperatively. The healing capacity of the ramp lesion was evaluated retrospectively. At the final follow-up (mean = 32 months), the Lysholm knee score and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective score were compared with preoperative scores. All patients (n = 46) underwent a second-look arthroscopy, with 45 (97.8%) exhibiting complete or partial healing after the FasT-Fix technique was used in conjunction with ACL reconstruction. The Lysholm knee score and IKDC objective score were significantly better than preoperative scores at final follow-up. The FasT-Fix technique for meniscal ramp lesion repair—when performed with concomitant ACL reconstruction—exhibits excellent healing results.