Purpose: Surgical education videos currently all use a single point of view (POV) with the trainee locked onto a fixed viewpoint, which may not deliver sufficient information for complex procedures. We developed a novel multiple POV video system and evaluated its training outcome compared with traditional single POV.

Methods: We filmed a hip resurfacing procedure performed by an expert attending using 8 cameras in theatre. 30 medical students were randomly and equally allocated to learn the procedure using the multiple POV (experiment group [EG]) versus single POV system (control group [CG]).

Participants advanced a pin into the femoral head as demonstrated in the video. We measured the drilling trajectories and compared it with pre-operative plan to evaluate distance of the pin insertion and angular deviations. Two orthopedic attendings expertly evaluated the participants' performance using a modified global rating scale (GRS). There was a pre-video knowledge test that was repeated post-simulation alongside a Likert-scale questionnaire.

Results: The angular deviation of the pin in EG was significantly less by 29% compared to CG (p=0.037), with no significant difference in the entry point's distance between groups (p=0.204). The GRS scores for EG were higher than CG (p=0.046). There was a 32% higher overall knowledge test score (p<0.001) and 21% improved Likert-scale questionnaire score (p=0.002) after video-learning in EG than CG, albeit no significant difference in the knowledge test score before video-learning (p=0.721).

Conclusion: The novel multiple POV provided significant objective and subjective advantages over single POV for acquisition of technical skills in hip surgery.

The angular deviation and distance deviation of entry points between the actually drilled and ideal virtual trajectory of the pin insertion in the femoral head in both groups.

Score values are mean (SD) [95% CI].

Retrospective studies show a low proportion of postoperative (PO) complications or alterations in management after Microincision Vitrectomy Surgery (MIVS). To our knowledge, this is the first prospective analysis of a telemedicine alternative to the standard practice for PO visits after MIVS. The purpose of this study is to evaluate telemedicine for the management of postoperative visits (POV) following MIVS. Ongoing randomized, prospective study with 53 patients assigned (1:1) to two arms of POV schedules including Virtual Telemedicine visits (VT) vs. In-person Telemedicine (IP) visits. POV schedules in both groups included visits on the same day after surgery and week(s) 1, 2, 8, and 12. Complete exams with visual acuity, intraocular pressure, and dilated fundus exams of the operative eye were performed by the retina surgeon on day 0, weeks 2 and 12 in both groups. Protocolized focused undilated exams on weeks 1 and 8 either remotely (VT group) or in-person (IP group). Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney U tests between groups using Microsoft Excel. Primary outcome, mean POV logMAR BCVA, showed no statistically significant difference (p-value = 0.70) between VT and IP groups. Other pre- and post-surgical comparisons (e.g. IOP, RNFL score) showed no statistical differences. No post-surgical complications have been noted. Telemedicine-assisted POV may be a safe and convenient alternative for patients undergoing uncomplicated MIVS, but additional and larger studies are needed.

Dataset for the DREAMING - Diminished Reality for Emerging Applications in Medicine through Inpainting Challenge

More information about the challenge can be found on the challenge website!

Timeline:

8th January 2024: First subset of training & validation data available.

22nd January 2024: Second subset of training & validation data available.

29th January 2024: Full training & validation data available.

Description:

The dataset was created using Unreal Engine 5.1, Unreal MetaHumans, 3D-COSI surgical instruments, POV-Surgery grasp generation and EasySynth.

Each scene contains:

• "color": RGB input images
• "gt": RGB ground truth images
• "mask": Mask defining the area to be inpainted. White -> Background, Black -> Inpainting area
• "CameraPoses.csv": Camera poses
• "CameraRig.json": Camera intrinsics

Further Data Extracted from the Included Studies.

Risk of Bias in the Included Randomized Controlled trials.

Background: There is uncertainty about the effect of antiemetic drugs (AED) for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after craniotomy. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness and safety of AED for PONV.Methods and Findings: We searched online databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Wiley, Elsevier Science Direct, Ovid LWW, and Springer for publications from 1985 to June 2018. Adults undergoing craniotomy with the prophylactic use of at least one AED were included. The primary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) during the first and second day. A total of 1,433 participants from 17 clinical trials were enrolled in this Network Meta-Analysis (NMA). Compared to placebo, ramosetron was the most effective treatment for PON 24 h after surgery (OR = 0.063, 95% Crl: 0.006–0.45), with a 69.2% probability. On the other hand, for POV, droperidol was the best treatment during the first 2 h with a 71.1% probability (OR = 0.029, 95% Crl: 0.003–0.25); while fosaprepitant was the most effective treatment at 0–24 h (OR = 0.027, 95% Crl: 0.007–0.094; 66.9% probability) and 0–48 h (OR = 0.036, 95% Crl: 0.006–0.18; 56.6% probability). Besides, ramosetron showed a significantly higher incidence of complete response (OR = 29. 95% Crl: 1.4–6.5e + 02), as well as lower requirement for rescue AED (OR = 0.022, 95% Crl: 0.001–0.2). Granisetron was associated with the lowest incidence of headache and excessive sedation.Conclusions: Compared with placebo, ramosetron appears to be the best prophylactic treatment for PON 24 h after craniotomy, with higher complete responses. Fosaprepitant appears to be the most effective prophylaxis option for POV on the first 0–24 and 0–48 h. Both may be better applied in combination with perioperative dexamethasone. These findings may guide clinicians to provide improved pharmacological prophylaxis for PONV after craniotomy with fewer adverse effects.