Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

No abstract

Background Feedback is a pivotal cornerstone and a challenge in psychomotor training. There are different teaching methodologies; however, some may be less effective. Methods A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in 130 medical students to compare the effectiveness of the video‐guided learning (VLG), peer‐feedback (PFG) and the expert feedback (EFG) for teaching suturing skills. The program lasted 4 weeks. Students were recorded making 3‐simple stitches (pre‐assessment and post‐assessment). The primary outcome was a global scale (OSATS). The secondary outcomes were performance time, specific rating scale (SRS) and the impact of the intervention (IOI), defined as the variation between the final and initial OSATS and SRS scores. Results No significant differences were found between PFG and EFG in post‐assessment results of OSATS, SRS scores or in the IOI for OSATS and SRS scores. Post‐assessment results of PFG and EFG were significantly superior to VLG in OSATS and SRS scores [(19.8 (18.5–21); 16.6 (15.5–17.5)) and (20.3 (19.88–21); 16.8 (16–17.5)) vs (15.7 (15–16); 13.3 (12.5–14)) (p < 0.05)], respectively. The results of PFG and EFG were significantly superior to VLG in the IOI for OSATS [7 (4.5–9) and 7.4 (4.88–10) vs 3.5 (1.5–6) (p < 0.05)] and SRS scores [5.4 (3.5–7) and 6.3 (4–8.5) vs 3.1 (1.13–4.88) (p < 0.05)], respectively. Conclusion The video‐guided learning methodology without any kind of feedback is not enough for teaching suturing skills compared to expert or peer feedback. The peer feedback methodology appears to be a viable alternative to handling the emerging demands in medical education.

No abstract

To support the global restart of elective surgery, data from an international prospective cohort study of 8492 patients (69 countries) was analysed using artificial intelligence (machine learning techniques) to develop a predictive score for mortality in surgical patients with SARS-CoV-2. We found that patient rather than operation factors were the best predictors and used these to create the COVIDsurg Mortality Score (https://covidsurgrisk.app). Our data demonstrates that it is safe to restart a wide range of surgical services for selected patients.

Recomendaciones generales para elaborar un programa de entrenamiento basado en simulación para desarrollar competencias en pregrado y postgrado General recommendations for the development of a simulation-based training program for undergraduate and graduate competencies

No abstract

Background: Pediatric procedures have the difficulty of being performed in reduced spaces. Training in reduced spaces has proven to be different in complexity compared to adult laparoscopic endotrainers. Aim: To develop and validate a new neonatal/reduced-space endotrainer. Methods: The simulator was tested and assessed by users with different skill levels and experience in laparoscopic pediatric surgery through an 8-item questionnaire. Construct validity was determined by evaluating the performance of each subject on nine exercises. Results: A 10.5 x 10 x 18 cm acrylic simulator was created, with an internal working surface of 9 x 9 cm. An HD camera was incorporated, with a 0-180° range of movement. All exercises of a Basic Laparoscopic Training Program were adapted on a scale of 1:0.5 to fit in. From 49 participants, 42 (85.71%) answered the survey; 80.5% considered that the simulator reproduces similar conditions to procedures performed in children under one year of age; 61.1% thought that the simulator represents a difficulty identical to procedures performed in newborns; 73.7% considered that the neonatal simulator is more complicated than the adult simulator. Experts showed significantly better performance in all proposed exercises. Conclusion: The simulator has a high-quality image and design that allows training with basic tasks. The endotrainer permitted to discriminate between these different skill levels and was well evaluated by users with diverse surgical experience.