Background Virtual reality (VR) simulators have become widespread tools for training medical students and residents in medical schools. Students using VR simulators are provided with a 3D human model to observe the details by using multiple senses and they can participate in an environment that is similar to reality. Objective The aim of this study was to promote a new approach consisting of a shared and independent study platform for medical orthopedic students, to compare traditional tendon repair training with VR simulation of tendon repair, and to evaluate future applications of VR simulation in the academic medical field. Methods In this study, 121 participants were randomly allocated to VR or control groups. The participants in the VR group studied the tendon repair technique via the VR simulator, while the control group followed traditional tendon repair teaching methods. The final assessment for the medical students involved performing tendon repair with the “Kessler tendon repair with 2 interrupted tendon repair knots” (KS) method and the “Bunnell tendon repair with figure 8 tendon repair” (BS) method on a synthetic model. The operative performance was evaluated using the global rating scale. Results Of the 121 participants, 117 participants finished the assessment and 4 participants were lost to follow-up. The overall performance (a total score of 35) of the VR group using the KS method and the BS method was significantly higher (P<.001) than that of the control group. Thus, participants who received VR simulator training had a significantly higher score on the global rating scale than those who received traditional tendon repair training (P<.001). Conclusions Our study shows that compared with the traditional tendon repair method, the VR simulator for learning tendon suturing resulted in a significant improvement of the medical students in the time in motion, flow of operation, and knowledge of the procedure. Therefore, VR simulator development in the future would most likely be beneficial for medical education and clinical practice. Trial Registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100046648; http://www.chictr.org.cn/hvshowproject.aspx?id=90180
To determine the outcome and differences between arthroscopic hip surgery and conservative therapy in patients suffering from femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, we searched articles from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science and http://clinicaltrials.gov using a Boolean search algorithm. Only randomized controlled trials comparing arthroscopic hip surgery and conservative therapy were included in this meta‐analysis of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome management. Two authors determined eligibility, extracted the needed data and assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies independently. Then we meta‐analyzed three articles to assess pooled estimate size (ES) and 95% confidence interval for Hip Outcome Score of activities of daily living (HOS ADL subscale), Hip Outcome Score sport (HOS sports subscale) and International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT‐33) analyses were performed by using STATA version 14.0 MP (STATA, College Station, TX, USA) with the principal summary measures are mean between group difference, sample size, and standard deviation. We collected 52 articles in total after removing duplicates and screened by titles and abstracts. A total of three RCTs were included finally. There was definite evidence of additional benefit of arthroscopic hip surgery against conservative therapy in the field of improving quality of life (three trials, 575 participants, ES = 2.109, 95% CI: 1.373 to 2.845, I2 = 42.8%, P = 0.000) and activity of daily living (two trials, 262 participants, ES = 9.220, 95% CI: 5.931 to 12.508, I2 = 16.5%, P = 0.000). However, no significant difference could be seen in sports function improvement (two trials, ES = 7.562, 95% CI: −2.957 to 18.082, I2 = 60.1%, P = 0.159). In conclusion, this meta‐analysis suggests that arthroscopic hip surgery provided essential benefit compared with conservative therapy in improving activity of daily living and quality of life.
Background Warfarin is the standard of care and NOAC (Novel oral anticoagulants) are a group of newer drugs for such purposes. NOAC has a generally better profile (Clear interaction, less side effect, require less monitoring). However, its efficacy on valvular atrial fibrillation remains unclear. Method We researched literature articles from Embase, Cochrane and PubMed. Then we meta-analysed these six articles to assess pooled estimate of relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cl) using random-effects model for stroke, systemic embolic event, major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Heterogeneity across study was tested with Cochran’s Q Test and I 2 Test. The bias of studies was first tested by examining the symmetry of Funnel Plot. Cochrane’s Collaboration Tool was also used to report any presented bias. Results We collected 496 articles in total and finally we included six articles in our meta-analysis. For SSEE (Stroke, Systemic Embolic Event), the pooled relative risk showed a significantly better clinical outcome of NOAC (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.95). However, there is no significant difference in major bleeding (RR: 0.714, 95% CI:0.46 to 1.11) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.21). Conclusion Compared to Warfarin, NOAC is significantly more protective against the embolic event, but no significant difference in lowering risk of major bleeding, all-cause mortality or all aspects of post-TAVI (Trans-catheter aortic valve implantation). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-019-1089-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Purpose Treatment of chronic ankle instability (CAI) for ankle sprain patients remains a challenge. If initial treatments fail, surgical stabilization techniques including ligament reconstruction should be performed. Anterior tibiofibular ligament (ATiFL) distal fascicle transfer for CAI was recently introduced. The goal of the study is to assess the 1-year clinical effectiveness of ATiFL’s distal fascicle transfer versus ligament reconstruction with InternalBrace™ (Fa. Arthrex, Naples). Methods Between October 2019 and February 2021, 25 patients (14 males and 11 females) scheduled for ligament reconstruction treatment of CAI were enrolled after propensity score matching. Twelve underwent ligament reconstruction with InternalBrace™ (InternalBrace™ group) and thirteen underwent ATiFL’s distal fascicle transfer (ATiFL’s distal fascicle transfer group). We recorded the American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), anterior drawer test grade, patient satisfaction and complications. All results of this study were retrospectively analyzed. Results Statistically significant (p = 0.0251, independent-samples t test) differences in the AOFAS can be found between the ATiFL’s distal fascicle transfer group and the InternalBrace™ group. No substantial changes in the VAS (p = 0.1778, independent-samples t test), patient satisfaction (p = 0.1800, independent-samples t test) and anterior drawer test grade (p = 0.9600, independent-samples t test) were found between the two groups. There was one patient with superficial wound infection and one patient with sural nerve injury in the InternalBrace™ group and ATiFL’s distal fascicle transfer group, respectively. Conclusion This is the first study that assessed a cohort of CAI patients and suggests that the ATiFL’s distal fascicle transfer operation has the potential to attain good-to-excellent clinical outcomes after 1-year recovery. The AOFAS scores were significantly higher for patients with ATiFL’s distal fascicle transfer, indicating that this technique may be considered a viable option for both patients and their surgeon, while long-term outcomes should be investigated in the future.
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.
hi@scite.ai
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.