Dataset Information

Annual Trainee Doctors’ Prize Day, Thursday 17th October 2019 : Postgraduate Medical Centre, Belfast City Hospital

ABSTRACT:

Aim:

Gore-Tex® is a widely used durable patch for repair of congenital diaphragmatic defects yet results in complications. Early reherniation has been reported in alternative xenografts such as Surgisis®. We wondered whether the matrix or decellularization (decel) process led to failure. We compared diaphragmatic reconstructions using SIS and decel porcine diaphragm (DPD), processed with a comparable decel protocol, to Gore-Tex in a fast-growing rabbit model.

Methods:

Twenty-three 6-weeks-old rabbits underwent intubation, left subcostal laparotomy and 3*3cm hemi- diaphragmatic excision. Defect closure was with a 3,5*3,5cm patch of (a) Gore-Tex® (n=10), (b) Surgisis® (n=6) or (c) DPD (n=7). Rates of herniation or eventration, uniaxial biomechanical testing, and histology were studied at 90days.

Results:

Eighteen (78%) rabbits survived to 90days. There was mesh failure in all decellularised matrices (p<0.001). Frank reherniation of abdominal contents in 14% of GoreTex group (n=1), 71% in SIS (n=5;fig.1e) and 25% with DPD (n=1). Eventration was observed in SIS (n=2 (29%)) or DPD (n=3 (75%); p<0.05) (fig.1f). Biomechanical testing was only possible with Gore-Tex. Decellularised matrices were replaced by thin fibrous tissue, almost acellular at the mesh centre. Gore-Tex induced a more vigorous inflammatory response.

Conclusion:

Reconstructions with natural matrices are more likely to fail than Gore-Tex repairs. Outcomes in our fast-growing rabbit model correlate to described clinical outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Eastwood M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8279014 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly used in clinical practice. Although there is robust evidence that AI innovations can improve patient care, reduce clinicians' workload and increase efficiency, their impact on medical training and education remains unclear.MethodsA survey of trainee doctors' perceived impact of AI technologies on clinical training and education was conducted at UK NHS postgraduate centers in London between October and December 2020. Impact assessment mirrored domains in training curricula such as 'clinical judgement', 'practical skills' and 'research and quality improvement skills'. Significance between Likert-type data was analysed using Fisher's exact test. Response variations between clinical specialities were analysed using k-modes clustering. Free-text responses were analysed by thematic analysis.ResultsTwo hundred ten doctors responded to the survey (response rate 72%). The majority (58%) perceived an overall positive impact of AI technologies on their training and education. Respondents agreed that AI would reduce clinical workload (62%) and improve research and audit training (68%). Trainees were skeptical that it would improve clinical judgement (46% agree, p = 0.12) and practical skills training (32% agree, p < 0.01). The majority reported insufficient AI training in their current curricula (92%), and supported having more formal AI training (81%).ConclusionsTrainee doctors have an overall positive perception of AI technologies' impact on clinical training. There is optimism that it will improve 'research and quality improvement' skills and facilitate 'curriculum mapping'. There is skepticism that it may reduce educational opportunities to develop 'clinical judgement' and 'practical skills'. Medical educators should be mindful that these domains are protected as AI develops. We recommend that 'Applied AI' topics are formalized in curricula and digital technologies leveraged to deliver clinical education.

Project description:BackgroundThe amount of information needed by doctors has exploded. The nature of knowledge (explicit and tacit) and processes of knowledge acquisition and participation are complex. Aiming to assist workplace learning, Wales Deanery funded "iDoc", a project offering trainee doctors a Smartphone library of medical textbooks.MethodsData on trainee doctors' (Foundation Year 2) workplace information seeking practice was collected by questionnaire in 2011 (n = 260). iDoc baseline questionnaires (n = 193) collected data on Smartphone usage alongside other workplace information sources. Case reports (n = 117) detail specific instances of Smartphone use.ResultsMost frequently (daily) used information sources in the workplace: senior medical staff (80% F2 survey; 79% iDoc baseline); peers (70%; 58%); and other medical/nursing team staff (53% both datasets). Smartphones were used more frequently by males (p < 0.01). Foundation Year 1 (newly qualified) was judged the most useful time to have a Smartphone library because of increased responsibility and lack of knowledge/experience.Preferred information source varied by question type: hard copy texts for information-based questions; varied resources for skills queries; and seniors for more complex problems. Case reports showed mobile technology used for simple (information-based), complex (problem-based) clinical questions and clinical procedures (skills-based scenarios). From thematic analysis, the Smartphone library assisted: teaching and learning from observation; transition from medical student to new doctor; trainee doctors' discussions with seniors; independent practice; patient care; and this 'just-in-time' access to reliable information supported confident and efficient decision-making.ConclusionA variety of information sources are used regularly in the workplace. Colleagues are used daily but seniors are not always available. During transitions, constant access to the electronic library was valued. It helped prepare trainee doctors for discussions with their seniors, assisting the interchange between explicit and tacit knowledge.By supporting accurate prescribing and treatment planning, the electronic library contributed to enhanced patient care. Trainees were more rapidly able to medicate patients to reduce pain and more quickly call for specific assessments. However, clinical decision-making often requires dialogue: what Smartphone technology can do is augment, not replace, discussion with their colleagues in the community of practice.