Measuring hand movement for suturing skill assessment: A simulation-based study.

BACKGROUND: To maximize patient safety, surgical skills education is increasingly adopting simulation-based curricula for formative skills assessment and training. However, many standardized assessment tools rely on human raters for performance assessment, which is resource-intensive and subjective. Simulators that provide automated and objective metrics from sensor data can address this limitation. We present an instrumented bench suturing simulator, patterned after the clock face radial suturing model from the Fundamentals of Vascular Surgery, for automated and objective assessment of open suturing skills. METHODS: For this study, 97 participants (35 attending surgeons, 32 residents, and 30 novices) were recruited at national vascular conferences. Automated hand motion metrics, especially focusing on rotational motion analysis, were developed from the inertial measurement unit attached to participants' hands, and the proposed suite of metrics was used to differentiate between the skill levels of the 3 groups. RESULTS: Attendings' and residents' performances were found to be significantly different from novices for all metrics. Moreover, most of our novel metrics could successfully distinguish between finer skill differences between attending and resident groups. In contrast, traditional operative skill metrics, such as time and path length, were unable to distinguish attendings from residents. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for the effectiveness of rotational motion analysis in assessing suturing skills. The suite of inertial measurement unit-based hand motion metrics introduced in this study allows for the incorporation of hand movement data for suturing skill assessment.

Comparison of Complications and Cost for Transfemoral Versus Transcarotid Stenting of Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Options for endovascular treatment of carotid artery disease have been developed to compliment with carotid endarterectomy, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) and a hybrid approach with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). We sought to capture endpoints outside of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death involved with each procedure at our institution as well as evaluate cost. METHODS: Carotid stent procedures performed from 2014 to 2020 at our institution underwent comparative analysis based upon access site and type of stent procedure performed, TFCAS versus TCAR. Procedural details and outcomes were captured prospectively and included in the National Cardiovascular Data Peripheral Vascular Intervention Registry (NCDR-PVI). Further retrospective review was performed to evaluate endpoints beyond stroke, MI, and death. Total in-hospital cost, including administrative, capital and utilities (fixed cost), and labor and supplies (variable cost) were also evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven patients were reviewed. Seventy-seven were treated with TFCAS and 60 with TCAR. The mean age was 74 years, predominantly male (68%) and Caucasian (90%). Patients undergoing TFCAS were more likely to be symptomatic compared to those receiving TCAR (81.8% vs. 50.0%, P = <0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in event rates, including mortality, recurrent cerebrovascular accident / transient ischemic attack, or bleeding. Complications not captured in the NCDR-PVI database were more frequent in the TCAR group (21.7% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.004) and included pneumothorax (n = 2), neck hematoma (n = 8), and common carotid artery stenosis or injury (n = 3). Rates of complications in the TFCAS group (n = 4) were lower and limited to groin hematoma (n = 2), central retinal artery occlusion causing vision loss and a case of postoperative dysphagia. Geographic miss of initial stent placement was identified in 15.0% of TCAR patients and 2.6% (P = 0.008) of TFCAS patients. Restenosis rates on duplex ultrasound were similar between the two groups (14.6% of patients) and were not associated with symptoms. The mean follow-up interval was similar for both groups of 31.8 months for TCAR and 30.7 months for TFCAS (P = 0.797). There was a statistically significant difference in total cost with TCAR being more expensive ($22,315 vs. $11,001) driven by direct costs that included devices, imaging, and extended length of stay in the TCAR group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between stroke free survival (91.1% vs. 88.6%, P = 0.69) and mortality (78.1% vs. 85.2%, P = 0.677) at 3 years follow-up between TCAR and TFCAS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both TFCAS and TCAR provide similar 3-year stroke and mortality risk/benefit and are distinctly different procedures. Both should be evaluated independently with analysis of variables beyond stroke, death, and MI. TFCAS is more cost-effective than TCAR in this single institution study.

Nonoperative management of grade III blunt thoracic aortic injuries.

OBJECTIVE: Blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAIs) have historically been treated with open surgery; thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), however, is rapidly becoming the standard of care for all grades of injury. Previous studies have shown successful, conservative management of low-grade (I and II) BTAI, but limited literature exists regarding nonoperative management (NOM) for high-grade BTAI. The purpose of this study was to evaluate NOM for grade III BTAI compared with TEVAR. METHODS: There were 75 patients diagnosed with BTAI between January 2004 and June 2015. Of these, 40 were excluded for different grades of BTAI (17), death before any treatment (6), and need for urgent open repair (17). The remaining 35 patients were divided into two groups by treatment approach: NOM (n = 18) and TEVAR (n = 17). Primary end points were complications and mortality. The secondary end point was difference in pseudoaneurysm and aortic diameter measurements between groups. RESULTS: The groups of patients were similar in age, gender, Injury Severity Score, length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and hospital-associated complications. There were four TEVAR-related complications: graft involutions (2), type I endoleak (1), and distal embolization (1). All TEVAR-related complications required either an adjunctive procedure at the time of the primary procedure or an additional procedure. No patients from the NOM group required operative intervention. There were seven in-hospital mortalities: two in the TEVAR group (11.8%) and five in the NOM group (27.8%; P = .402). One death in the NOM group was related to aortic disease. Follow-up computed tomography imaging revealed similar aortic-related outcomes between groups, with a high proportion showing resolved or improved aortic injury (NOM, 87.5%; TEVAR, 92.9%; P = .674). Initial computed tomography imaging showed similar aortic diameters between groups. The average diameter of the aorta distal to the subclavian artery was 22.6 mm in the NOM group vs 22.8 mm in the TEVAR group (P = .85). The average maximum diameter of the pseudoaneurysm was 30.1 mm in the TEVAR group and 29.9 mm in the NOM group (P = .90). The average ratio of diameter of the pseudoaneurysm to diameter of the aorta distal to the subclavian artery was 1.32 for the TEVAR group and 1.33 for the NOM group (P = .85). CONCLUSIONS: The natural history of grade III BTAIs is not well described. This study suggests that observation and NOM of grade III BTAI may be a reasonable therapeutic option in selected patients. It also speaks to the need for further delineation of the natural history of this injury. Serial imaging and long-term follow-up are necessary to monitor the progression of the pseudoaneurysm.

Right hemicolectomy is not routinely indicated in pseudomyxoma peritonei.

Pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is primarily the result of a ruptured mucinous appendix neoplasm (MAN). Often MAN is lumped with but biologically distinct from intestinal appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Nodal and systemic dissemination are rare with the peritoneal cavity being the primary site of recurrence. Routine performance of right hemicolectomy (RHC) for PMP/MAN has been extensively debated without consensus. Our objective was to ascertain whether RHC has a survival advantage over appendectomy. We hypothesize if RHC is mandatory, then increased tumor recurrence and mortality should be observed in appendectomy only. Retrospective chart review was carried out in patients with tumors that met the Ronnett classification for PMP/MAN. Demographics, tumor grade, extent, recurrence, and progression were recorded. We report the rate of nodal involvement/recurrence in patients treated with RHC versus appendectomy as well as the rate of systemic and peritoneal recurrence and survival. Multivariate logistic regression was done to identify factors that impact survival. Of 120 patients, 48 had appendectomy and 72 had RHC. Seven per cent of patients undergoing RHC had positive lymph nodes and no nodal failures (0%) in patients undergoing appendectomy. Appendectomy versus RHC recurrence rates (21 vs. 28%, P = 0.12) and death resulting from disease (8 vs. 22%, P = 0.27) were similar. Logistic regression revealed that the type of surgery had no impact on recurrence and mortality, only optimal resection score and performance status. There was no difference in tumor recurrence or survival based on treatment by appendectomy or RHC. Performance status and complete cytoreduction are the only factors associated with survival. Lymph node involvement is rare and selective RHC is safe in PMP/MAN.