Background: The first instance of a robotic-assisted surgery occurred in neurosurgery; however, it is now more common in other fields such as urology and gynecology. This study aims to characterize the prevalence of robotic surgery among current neurosurgery programs as well as identify trends in clinical trials pertaining to robotic neurosurgery. Methods: Each institution’s website was analyzed for the mention of a robotic neurosurgery program and procedures. The future potential of robotics in neurosurgery was assessed by searching for current clinical trials pertaining to neurosurgical robotic surgery. Results: Of the top 100 programs, 30 offer robotic cranial and 40 offer robotic spinal surgery. No significant differences were observed with robotic surgical offerings between geographic regions in the US. Larger programs (faculty size 16 or over) had 20 of the 30 robotic cranial programs (66.6%), whereas 21 of the 40 robotic spinal programs (52.5%) were at larger programs. An initial search of clinical trials revealed 223 studies, of which only 13 pertained to robotic neurosurgery. Spinal fixation was the most common intervention (six studies), followed by Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS, two studies), Cochlear implants (two studies), laser ablation (LITT, one study), and endovascular embolization (one study). Most studies had industry sponsors (9/13 studies), while only five studies had hospital sponsors. Conclusion: Robotic neurosurgery is still in its infancy with less than half of the top programs offering robotic procedures. Future directions for robotics in neurosurgery appear to be focused on increased automation of stereotactic procedures such as DBS and LITT and robot-assisted spinal surgery.
Background Although perceived barriers to applying to dermatology have been researched among medical students, there remains a dearth of literature dedicated to understanding perceptions that medical students have of the field of dermatology and dermatologists. Methods A review of the literature in Embase, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect were carried out to identify articles and abstracts between 2016 and 2021 relating to medical student perceptions of the field of dermatology. Peer‐reviewed English studies measuring attitudes/level of interest in dermatology or other specialities, understanding of dermatologic topics, procedures, and/or scope of practice were included. Duplicate studies and conference abstracts were excluded. All publications were screened using the PRISMA‐Sc guidelines. Findings were summarised and tabulated accordingly. Results A total of nine articles met inclusion criteria and eight are included in this review since one was not accessible online. Notable findings include non‐US medical students perceiving dermatology as monotonous, stigmatized, unfamiliar, and difficult to access with a misunderstanding of the diversity and severity of the conditions dermatologists treat. No data on US medical student perceptions was found. Perceptions were found to be influential in career planning: medical students may reject specialities after exposure to negative comments on the field. Factors attracting students to dermatology include the appeal of being a dermatologist, media portrayal, and dermatologists' influence on patients' lives. Completion of dermatology‐related activities improved medical student interest, comfort, and understanding of the field. Early dermatology exposure in US undergraduate premedical students led to heightened interest in the field, more confidence in ability to find dermatology mentors, and increased perception that dermatology serves the needs of underserved communities. Conclusions This review demonstrates the need to further investigate medical student perceptions of dermatology, particularly in the United States. Perceptions of medical specialities can impact medical student career choices. Understanding which misconceptions may be preventing students from exploring dermatology can inform efforts towards improving diversity, equity, and inclusion: translating to an equitable match and improving patient outcomes. Limitations include exclusion of articles published before 2016, geographic variability in studies, and limited data on evolving student perceptions over time.
Background: Although lower back injuries (LBIs) are common among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) female volleyball athletes, their incidence and etiology has not been well-defined. Purpose: To describe the epidemiology of LBIs in collegiate female volleyball athletes over a 5-year period from the academic years 2009 to 2010 and 2013 to 2014. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: The incidence and characteristics of spine injuries were identified utilizing the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program database. Rates of injury were calculated as the number of injuries by the total number of athlete-exposures (AEs). AEs were defined as any student participation in any single NCAA-sanctioned practice or competition. The injury rate was computed as the number of injuries per the total number of AEs and reported as a ration of injuries per 10,000 exposures. The ratio was then reported as overall number as well as stratified for event, time of season, and athletic NCAA division. Incidence rate ratios were then calculated to compare rates between event type. Results with 95% CIs that did not include 1.0 were considered statistically significant. Results: An estimated 3384 LBIs occurred in NCAA female volleyball players during this 5-year time frame. These LBIs occurred at a rate of 4.89 injuries per 10,000 AEs. LBIs were 2.76 times more likely in preseason when compared with regular season. More injuries occurred in practice (85%) when compared with competition (15%). The outside hitter and middle blocker were the most commonly position to sustain an LBI. Almost 70% of injuries were new injuries, and another 29% were recurrent injuries. The most common mechanism of injury was equally split between contact (50.4%) and overuse (45.5%) injuries, whereas the remaining mechanisms of injury were secondary for unknown reasons (4.14%). Most players returned to play within 24 hours (72.3%) followed by 1 to 6 days (16.4%), and finally 7 to 12 days (11.3%). No patient required surgical intervention. Conclusion: The rate of LBIs was high (4.89/10,000 AEs) and injuries commonly recurred (29.2%). Most injuries were new, with most athletes returning to play with 24 hours.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.