Citations

Studies have shown that prosection and dissection facilitate similar academic outcomes and promote meaningful learning in anatomy laboratory courses. While dissection is the mainstay of many graduate level anatomy curricula, financial and other constraints have increased the use of prosection. This research evaluates student preference for studying different body regions and accomplishing learning outcomes related to content knowledge, teamwork, career preparation, humanistic learning, and wellness. First‐year medical students (n=51) who completed a hybrid prosection and dissection course completed a post‐course survey about their perceptions of the effectiveness of each lab learning modality. Response options included prosection, dissection, no preference (equally effective), and no preference (equally ineffective). A one‐way ANOVA was used to evaluate performance differences on course assessments between students in the hybrid course and students in past years who participated in a dissection based course. The response rate was 51%. Respondents preferred dissection for learning the back (62%), thorax (68%), abdomen (54%), shoulder, axilla, and arm (61.5%), and hip, thigh, and leg (46%). Prosection was favored for the pelvis (perineum 81%, cavity 69%), foot (58%), hand (46%), and head/neck (64%). Students favored dissection for gaining hands‐on skills relevant to surgical practice, appreciating anatomical variation, becoming more comfortable handling the human body, engaging in self‐directed learning, and fostering teamwork. Respondents felt prosection provided more time for independent study and wellness activities. Prosection and dissection were rated equally effective for developing a medical vocabulary, applying anatomical knowledge to clinical conditions, and gaining a 3D appreciation of the body. A hybrid prosection and dissection course was preferred by 73% of respondents, compared to 4% who ranked prosection alone as their preference; no students ranked dissection alone as their first choice. There were no statistically significant differences in academic performance related to teaching methods (F(3,195) = 2.65, p=0.34) between students in the hybrid course and students in previous dissection only courses. Students prefer prosection for learning more spatially complex and intricate regions requiring time‐consuming and skilled dissection. However, learners recognize distinct benefits of dissection for acquiring various technical and non‐technical skills. Hybrid courses should capitalize on the strengths of each method, aligning instructional methods with outcomes and incorporating learner preferences to achieve meaningful, lasting learning.

Abstract Context Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal protocol aimed to improve quality of postoperative recovery, minimize complications, and optimize overall self-regulation. Preoperative gabapentin decreases postoperative pain but can be associated with prolonged postoperative somnolence and respiratory depression risk. Although it is known that gabapentin affects the postoperative course, it is unclear if the timing of preoperative administration affects this finding. Objectives This study aims to assess the optimal preoperative timing for gabapentin administration in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery to minimize postoperative somnolence risk. Methods A retrospective cohort study evaluated patients who underwent major gynecologic surgery and received preoperative gabapentin. Patients were grouped based on timing from gabapentin administration to surgical incision (<4 h group vs. ≥4 h group). Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were abstracted and compared. Univariate associations between the timing of gabapentin administration and the patient and surgical characteristics and outcomes were tested utilizing two-sample equal-variance t-tests, linear model ANOVA, or Fisher’s exact tests. Associations between the timing of gabapentin administration and the time until the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score of 0 were modeled utilizing linear regression, adjusted for age, initial postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU), RASS score, and postoperative narcotics. Results Each group contained 127 patients. Demographics were similar except for age (<4 h group mean=44.2 years; ≥4 h group mean=40.5 years; p=0.021), chronic pain (<4 h group=17.6%; ≥4 h group=43.3%; p<0.001), and surgical indication (<4 h group=pelvic pain [29.1%]; ≥4 h group=pelvic pain [51.2%]; p=0.007). The <4 h group had a similar postoperative narcotic administration (<4 h group mean morphine milligram equivalents [MME]=3.667; ≥4 h group mean MME=4.833; p=0.185). The minutes from surgical closure until the patient received a RASS score of 0 and initial PACU pain score (Visual Analogue Scale [VAS]) were similar. The initial PACU oxygen administration volume, hours from surgical closure until the patient transitioned to room air, and initial PACU respiratory rate were similar. The PACU duration, admission secondary to somnolence, and initial PACU Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score showed no difference. Postoperative nausea/vomiting was decreased in the ≥4 h group (<4 h group=24.4%; ≥4 h group=13.4%; p-value=0.036), and urinary retention (<4 h group=14.2%; ≥4 h group=5.5%; p-value=0.033) was decreased in the ≥4 h group. Conclusions The timing of gabapentin administration less than or more than 4 h preoperatively in patients ≥18 years does not significantly affect postoperative somnolence or respiratory depression. Further, it does not have a significant effect on GCS scores or VAS scores.

Abstract Objective To assess the real‐world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant in a tertiary headache center. Background The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were established in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. However, there is no real‐world data of patient experience with ubrogepant in a population in which the majority of patients have chronic migraine, multiple prior unsuccessful treatments, complex medical comorbidities, and concurrent use of other migraine‐specific medications. Method This was a post‐market cohort study conducted at Mayo Clinic Arizona. All patients prescribed ubrogepant were tracked and contacted 1–3 months after the prescription to answer a list of standardized questions. Demographic information and additional headache history were obtained from chart review. Results We obtained eligible questionnaire responses from 106 patients. Chronic migraine accounted for 92/106 (86.8%) of the population. Complete headache freedom (from mild/moderate/severe to no pain) and headache relief (from moderate/severe to mild/no pain or mild to no pain) for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant were achieved in 20/105 (19.0%) and 50/105 (47.6%) patients, respectively. A total of 33/106 (31.1%) patients reported being “very satisfied” with ubrogepant. Adverse events were reported in 42/106 (39.6%) patients, including fatigue in 29/106 (27.4%), dry mouth in 8/106 (7.5%), nausea/vomiting in 7/106 (6.6%), constipation in 5/106 (4.7%), dizziness in 3/106 (2.8%), and other adverse events in 7/106 (6.6%). Predictive factors for being a “good responder” to ubrogepant, defined as headache relief for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant, included migraine with aura, episodic migraine, <5 prior unsuccessful preventive or acute treatment trials. Additionally, prior treatment responses to a CGRP monoclonal antibody and onabotulinumtoxinA injections are predictive of treatment responses and patient satisfaction to ubrogepant. For the 62/106 (58.5%) patients concurrently using a CGRP monoclonal antibody, there was no difference in the “good responder” rate or adverse event rate compared to those who were not on a CGRP monoclonal antibody, though the rate of moderate, as opposed to mild adverse events was higher, 11/62 (47.8%) versus 3/44 (17.6%), p = 0.048. Additionally, 16 patients had a history of significant cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases. No severe adverse events were reported in any patient. Conclusion Our study confirms and extends the efficacy profile and tolerability of ubrogepant in a real‐world tertiary headache clinic and identifies factors that may predict efficacy. Adverse event rates were higher than reported in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the long‐term efficacy and safety of ubrogepant.