BackgroundThe choice of whether to undertake an intercalated Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree is one of the most important decisions that students must make during their time at medical school. An effect on exam performance would improve a student's academic ranking, giving them a competitive edge when applying for foundation posts.MethodsRetrospective data analysis of anonymised student records. The effects of intercalating on final year exam results, Foundation Programme score, application form score (from white-space questions), quartile rank score, and success with securing Foundation School of choice were assessed using linear and ordered logistic regression models, adjusted for course type, year of graduation, graduate status and baseline (Year 1) performance.ResultsThe study included 1158 students, with 54% choosing to do an intercalated BSc, and 9.8% opting to do so at an external institution. Doing an intercalated BSc was significantly associated with improved outcome in Year 5 exams (P = 0.004). This was irrespective of the year students chose to intercalate, with no significant difference between those that intercalated after years 2, 3 and 4 (p = 0.3096). There were also higher foundation application scores (P < 0.0001), academic quartile scores (P = 0.0003) and resultant overall foundation scores (P < 0.0001) in intercalated students. These students also had improved success with securing their first choice Foundation School (p = 0.0220). Participants who remained at the institution to intercalate in general performed better than those that opted to intercalate elsewhere.ConclusionsDoing an intercalated BSc leads to an improvement in subsequent exam results and develops the skills necessary to produce a strong foundation programme application. It also leads to greater success with securing preferred Foundation School posts in students. Differences between internally- and externally-intercalating students may be due to varying course structures or greater challenge in adjusting to a new study environment.

INTRODUCTIONThe incidence of conversion from a laparoscopic to an open approach during nephrectomy is reported at 6-8%. 1 Conversion to an open procedure may be necessary to control haemorrhage or allow progress in dissection but the well established benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) are obviously lost. Hand-assisted laparoscopy (HAL) also offers the benefits to the patient of MIS. We have used HAL to convert from the pure laparoscopic approach during difficult nephrectomies, rather than converting to traditional open surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS A review of our prospective database was carried out to identify any conversions from the pure laparoscopic approach during nephrectomy or nephroureterectomy for benign or malignant disease. RESULTS A total of 87 laparoscopic nephrectomies (LNs) were identified over a 3-year period. There were five conversions to the HAL approach (5.7%) and no conversions to open surgery. The reason for conversion was failure to progress in all five cases. Operative times averaged 190 minutes with blood loss of 180ml. Histology revealed xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis in four cases and renal cell carcinoma in one case. The median postoperative stay was 4 days. CONCLUSIONS Conversion to HAL during LN maintains the benefits of MIS in difficult nephrectomy and should be considered prior to converting to open surgery.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract