What do we need to know about anatomy in gynaecology? An international validation study.

OBJECTIVE: International validation of the Dutch Delphi study about which anatomical structures should be taught to ensure safe and competent practice among general gynaecologists. STUDY DESIGN: Validation study with gynaecologists and trainees in gynaecology from academic, non-academic teaching and non-academic, non-teaching hospitals worldwide. The relevance of 123 items included in the Dutch Delphi study was scored on a Likert scale between 1 (not relevant) and 5 (highly relevant). Consensus was defined when ≥70 % of the panellist scored the item as relevant or very relevant and the average rating was ≥4. RESULTS: A total of 192 gynaecologists and trainees from seven countries (Belgium, Germany, Norway, Oceania, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States) completed the questionnaire. Of the 123 structures, 72 (58.5%) were internationally relevant. When the 72 relevant structures from the international Delphi study were compared with the 86 relevant structures from the Dutch Delphi study, 70 (81.4%) structures matched. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified 70 anatomical structures that should be taught for safe and competent practice of general gynaecologists based on national and international validation. The results of our study identify the learning needs (i.e., the content) for an international anatomy curriculum. The development of the curriculum (i.e., the form) can be determined by each country and used to standardize and guide postgraduate training in gynaecology. This is an important step in the era of international teaching and training.

Brivaracetam for the treatment of refractory epilepsy in patients with prior exposure to levetiracetam: A retrospective outcome analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine whether brivaracetam (BRV) provides an evident improvement in treatment efficacy and a reduction in treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in patients with refractory epilepsy, who previously failed treatment with levetiracetam (LEV). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data extracted from electronic patient files at Epilepsy Centre Kempenhaeghe (Heeze, the Netherlands) from the year 2000 until October 2020. METHODS: The inclusion criteria were met by 407 patients >18 years of age. During data collection, 26 patients were excluded due to too little follow-up information on the use of either LEV or BRV, and two more due to poor medication compliance, leaving a total of 379 patients for further analyses. All had used LEV before they started treatment with BRV. For every patient, data were collected including demographic information, efficacy (positive responder or non-responder) of LEV and BRV, and TEAEs occurring during LEV and BRV treatment. RESULTS: A total of 121 (29.8%) patients had discontinued BRV treatment before the end of data collection. At time of data collection the mean time since first seizure was 25.4 years. Of the 379 patients, 82.8% were diagnosed with focal epilepsy and 9.8% with generalized epilepsy. The median duration of treatment was 39 months for LEV and 20 months for BRV, the mean maximum dose was 1749.9 mg/day for LEV and 144.2 mg/day for BRV, and the mean number of concomitant AEDs was 1.4 at the start of LEV treatment and 2.0 at the start of BRV treatment. LEV was switched directly to BRV in 208 (54.9%) patients; 171 (45.1%) patients had an interval between discontinuation of LEV and the start of BRV. The mean duration of interval was 77.7 months. Of the patients who discontinued BRV, 30 (24.8%) switched back to LEV. Discontinuation of initial LEV treatment was due to TEAEs in 63.6% of patients, including 55.1% because of behavioural TEAEs. Discontinuation of BRV was due to inadequate efficacy in 24.0% of patients, to TEAEs in 47.1% and to both inadequate efficacy and TEAEs in 22.3%. Concerning efficacy, the analysis showed no significant difference between the positive responder rate of LEV and BRV (72.0% vs 69.1%, p>0.05). Of the patients who were positive responders to LEV treatment, 78.0% also had a positive response to BRV treatment. Of the non-responders to LEV treatment, 46.2% did have a positive response to BRV treatment. In comparison to LEV, patients reported significantly fewer TEAEs during BRV treatment (86.5% vs 61.7%, p<0.05). The most substantial difference was seen in the category 'behaviour' (55.1% vs 22.4%, p<0.05). Newly found behavioural TEAEs after switching from LEV to BRV were found in 7.1% of patients. CONCLUSION: Overall BRV was better tolerated than LEV, especially regarding the behavioural TEAEs. Efficacy analyses showed that patients are likely to have a positive response to BRV when they had a positive response to LEV. However, this is not always guaranteed. Lack of response to LEV does not preclude a positive response to BRV. All in all, BRV seems to be an interesting treatment option in patients previously treated with LEV.

Anatomy (knowledge) in postgraduate obstetrics and gynaecology training: Is it sufficient enough?

BACKGROUND: Due to the importance, anatomy training is worldwide recognizable in virtually all undergraduate curricula and many postgraduate surgical curricula (Estai and Bunt, 2016; Older, 2004). The postgraduate curriculum of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) is such a surgical curriculum. It is a diverse branch of medicine and the role of anatomy in O&G is versatile. In the Netherlands nor in Europe the expectations of knowledge on anatomy are specified in the current training program, making trainees insecure about their performance in anatomy knowledge ("Better Education for Obsetrics and Gynaecology,"). Therefore, we recently performed a Delphi study to determine which anatomical structures should be taught to ensure safe and competent practice among general gynaecologists (Koppes et al., 2020). The aim of this study is the determination of the anatomical knowledge level in postgraduate training for O&G. Our hypothesis is that the trainees possess a good knowledge of anatomy and on average at least 80% of correct answers on core knowledge is shown. METHODS: A longitudinal knowledge analysis was performed under Dutch Trainees Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The anatomy questions of the annual progress tests from 2010 to 2019 were analysed. Anatomy questions were selected and assessed on relevance based on the previous performed Delphi study which identified 86 structures which are essential to perform safe and competent practice as a general gynaecologist. Scores on relevant anatomy questions were calculated. RESULTS: In 10-year 3136 trainees performed the annual progress test. 54 Anatomy related questions were asked on a total of 1637 questions (3.3%). Of these 54 questions, 38 (70%) were concerned as relevant questions. Overall 10-year score was 64.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The anatomy knowledge of trainees' Obstetrics and Gynaecology is insufficient. Our results are a step in the awareness of testing and improving anatomy knowledge of postgraduate O&G training.