Introduction and hypothesisPolypropylene is a material that is commonly used to treat pelvic floor conditions such as pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Owing to the nature of complications experienced by some patients implanted with either incontinence or prolapse meshes, the biocompatibility of polypropylene has recently been questioned. This literature review considers the in vivo response to polypropylene following implantation in animal models. The specific areas explored in this review are material selection, impact of anatomical location, and the structure, weight and size of polypropylene mesh types.MethodsAll relevant abstracts from original articles investigating the host response of mesh in vivo were reviewed. Papers were obtained and categorised into various mesh material types: polypropylene, polypropylene composites, and other synthetic and biologically derived mesh.ResultsPolypropylene mesh fared well in comparison with other material types in terms of host response. It was found that a lightweight, large-pore mesh is the most appropriate structure.ConclusionThe evidence reviewed shows that polypropylene evokes a less inflammatory or similar host response when compared with other materials used in mesh devices.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00192-016-3029-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Introduction Literature has shown near-peer teaching to be an effective method of improving learning. There is little data on surgical teaching initiatives of this kind. Nationally and locally, teaching sessions and courses have been cancelled due to the pandemic. A new surgical lunch-time virtual course was created to fill this gap. Method FY1 doctors from University Hospital Wales were invited to participate in a survey exploring the need and topics for surgical teaching. Results were used to create a surgical teaching course. Near-peer, core surgical trainees were recruited to teach. A post-course questionnaire was distributed to FY1 doctors who attended the teaching to assess the success of the course. Results 15 FY1 doctors completed the initial questionnaire. 33% (5) were currently on a surgical placement. 60% (9) had an upcoming surgical placement. 73% (11) felt they did not have sufficient teaching on surgical specialties during medical school. 93% (14) felt they did not have sufficient teaching on how to manage surgical patients as a FY1. 100% (15) responded they would be interested in surgical teaching delivered by core surgical trainees. Eight topics were suggested, and lunchtime sessions were created. Post-course feedback was completed by 12 FY1 doctors. 88% (10) of respondents found the course ‘extremely useful’ and relevant to their surgical jobs. Conclusions There is a demand for surgical teaching for FY1s. Near-peer education designed by FY1s and delivered by CSTs is an effective way for teaching relevant surgical knowledge. Lunch-time virtual teaching is a good way to continue teaching sessions through the pandemic.

Aims Studies have shown that new medical graduates feel unprepared for their role as clinicians. Courses and teachings have been cancelled due to COVID-19. Our aim was to assess demand for surgical teaching and provide a new surgical course delivered virtually to fill this gap. Methods FY1 doctors from a large teaching hospital were invited to fill in a questionnaire to assess their preparedness for surgical specialties and subsequent appetite for near-peer teaching. The findings were used to create a virtual surgical teaching course. A post-course questionnaire was distributed to assess the success of the course. Results Fifteen FY1 doctors completed the questionnaire. 73% (11) felt they had not had sufficient teaching on surgical specialties during medical school. 93% (14) felt they did not have sufficient teaching on managing surgical patients in foundation training. None felt ‘very confident’ managing patients peri-operatively. None felt ‘very confident’ managing surgical complications. 66.7% (10) and 53.3% (8) said they had not had any teaching from SHOs or SpRs respectively. Of those who had, 66.7% (4) and 85.7% (6) found it ‘very useful’. 100% (15) said they would be interested in surgical teaching delivered by CSTs. Twelve FY1 doctors completed the post-course feedback. 83% (10) found the course ‘extremely useful’ and relevant to their surgical ward based jobs. Conclusion FY1s are not confident in managing surgical patients on the wards. There is a demand for surgical teaching for FY1s. Virtual lunch-time teaching is an effective way to encourage and continue surgical teaching throughout the pandemic.