Learners' Responses to a Virtual Cadaver Dissection Nerve Course in the COVID Era: A Survey Study

Perceptions of online surgical-focused learning amongst surgeons during the COVID pandemic: A scoping review 2020-22

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID pandemic many centres adopted e-learning as a tool to adhere to social distancing recommendations while continuing to provide ongoing postgraduate medical education. We aimed to complete this scoping review in order to map experience and perceptions amongst surgeons and surgical trainees to remote learning during the COVID pandemic.

METHODS

Using Arksey and O'Malley's five step model for conducting a scoping review, a systematic search strategy was undertaken across three online databases SCOPUS, MEDLINE and Web of Science. Only original articles in English in the field of postgraduate education in surgery were included.

RESULTS

44 studies were selected for review. Of these 44, 21 were studies of perception of a newly developed e-learning tool/platform. 17 were surveys of surgeon's attitudes towards e-learning during the COVID pandemic. The remaining 6 studies were studies of knowledge or skills acquired through new e-learning, which included a survey of experience. The United States was the most common country of origin with General Surgery the most represented surgical speciality. Response rates across all three study subgroups were on average >60%. Surgeon's experience of e-learning was reported in only positive terms in 86% (n = 38/44) of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper is informative in that it focuses specifically on surgeons' perceptions of a e-learning tools used in addition to skills or knowledge gained. Positive e-learning experience reported in these studies may lead to more blended learning curriculums being developed, deployed and evaluated going forward.

Remote cadaveric minimally invasive surgical training

Objective

The aim of the study is to discuss the efficacy of live vs. remote cadaver surgical training (CST) for minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

Methods

A cohort of 30 interns in their first and second years of training were divided into three groups: live observers (n = 12), live participants (n = 6), and remote observers: (n = 12). The interns had the opportunity to either observe or actively participate in two different surgical procedures, namely, laparoscopic lower anterior resection, performed by a colorectal surgical team, and laparoscopic fundoplication, performed by a pediatric surgical team. The procedures were conducted either at a base center or at a remote center affiliated with the institute. Some of the interns interacted directly with the surgical teams at the base center, and others interacted indirectly with the surgical teams from the remote center. All interns were administered questionnaires before and after completion of the CST in order to assess their understanding of various aspects related to the operating room layout/instruments (called "design"), accessing the surgical field (called "field"), understanding of anatomic relations (called "anatomy"), their skill of dissection (called "dissection"), ability to resolve procedural/technical problems (called "troubleshooting"), and their skill in planning surgery (called "planning") according to their confidence to operate using the following scale: 1 = not confident to operate independently; 4 = confident to operate with a more senior trainee; 7 = confident to operate with a peer; and 10 = confident to operate with a less experienced trainee. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

All scores improved after CST at both the base and remote centers. The following significant increases were observed: for remote observers: "field" (2.67→4.92; p < .01), "anatomy" (3.58→5.75; p < .01), "dissection" (3.08→4.33; p = .01), and "planning" (3.08→4.33; p < .01); for live observers: "design" (3.75→6.17; p < .01), "field" (2.83→5.17; p < .01), "anatomy" (3.67→5.58; p < .01), "dissection" (3.17→4.58; p < .01), "troubleshooting" (2.33→3.67; p < .01), and "planning" (2.92→4.25; p < .01); and for live participants: "design" (3.83→6.33; p = .02), "field" (2.83→6.83; p < .01), "anatomy" (3.67→5.67; p < .01), "dissection" (2.83→6.17; p < .01), "troubleshooting" (2.17→4.17; p < .01), and "planning" (2.83→4.67; p < .01). Understanding of "design" improved significantly after CST in live observers compared with remote observers (p < .01). Understanding of "field and "dissection" improved significantly after CST in live participants compared with live observers (p = .01, p = .03, respectively). Out of the 12 remote observers, 10 participants (83.3%) reported that interacting with surgical teams was easy because they were not on-site.

Conclusions

Although all the responses were subjective and the respondents were aware that observation was inferior to hands-on experience, the results from both centers were equivalent, suggesting that remote learning could potentially be viable when resources are limited.