Objective: To assess the impact of an oocyte retrieval simulation training program (ORSTP) on the clinical performance of residents. Design: Prospective comparative study. Setting: A tertiary care center. Population: All OR performed by residents between May 2018 and November 2021.  Methods & main outcome measures: The Simulation (S) group included oocyte retrieval (OR) performed by residents who had undergone an ORSTP before performing them on patients (n=422) and the control (C) group included OR performed by residents who had not received prior simulation training (n= 329). Our main outcome measure was the OR rate (ORR) (number of oocytes collected/number of follicles aspirated) during the first 3 months of the rotation. Results: In the S group, 6 residents aspirated 657 ovaries while in the C group, 5 residents aspirated 508 ovaries. The mean ORR during the first 3 months of rotation were comparable between the S and C groups (59% (2800/472) vs 58% (1910/3281)). ORR during the first and second month, and at the end of the rotation were also comparable between the S and C groups (54% vs 63%, 58% vs 59% and 58% vs 58%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the rate of failed OR (3.3% vs 1.8%) between the S and C groups. Finally, 16% of residents in the S group reported being stressed before their first OR compared to 40% in the C group. Conclusions: The ORSTP does not improve the residents’ clinical performance, but it could decrease their stress in clinical practice. Keywords: oocyte pick-up, infertility, simulation, education, student.

Objective: To assess the impact of an oocyte retrieval simulation training program (ORSTP) on the clinical performance of residents. Design: Prospective comparative study. Setting: A tertiary care center. Population: All OR performed by residents between May 2017 and November 2020. Methods & main outcome measures: The Simulation (S) group included OR performed by residents who had undergone an ORSTP before performing them on patients (n=422) and the control (C) group included OR performed by residents who had not received prior simulation training (n= 329). Our main outcome measure was the OR rate (ORR) (number of oocytes collected/number of follicles aspirated) during the first 3 months of the rotation. Results: In the S group, 6 residents aspirated 657 ovaries while in the C group, 5 residents aspirated 508 ovaries. The mean ORR during the first 3 months of rotation were comparable between the S and C groups (59% vs 58%). ORR during the first and second month, and at the end of the rotation were also comparable between the S and C groups (54% vs 63%, 58% vs 59% et 58% vs 58%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the rate of failed OR (3.3% vs 1.8%) between the S and C groups. Finally, 16% of residents in the S group reported being stressed before their first OR compared to 40% in the C group. Conclusions: The ORSTP does not improve the residents’ clinical performance, but it could decrease their stress in clinical practice.

Objectives: To compare the neonatal morbidity of caesarean sections (CS) performed after conversion from neuraxial (NA) to general anaesthesia (GA) with CS performed under GA from the outset, and to assess whether the increase in DDI in urgent and extremely urgent cases with conversion from NA to GA increased the risk of neonatal morbidity. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: University-affiliated hospital. Population: All CS performed under GA between 2015 and 2019. Methods & main outcome measures: Our main criteria used for assessing neonatal morbidity were: neonatal pH <7.10 and/or an Apgar score at 5 minutes <7. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to adjust for gestational age, birth weight, indication of CS. Results: We included 284 patients: 116 had a conversion from NA to GA (group 1) and 168 had GA from the outset (group 2). There was no significant difference in the rate of neonates having a pH<7.10 and/or Apgar score <5 between groups 1 and 2 (17.5% Vs 26.3%, p=0.08, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that neonatal morbidity was comparable between the two groups (OR=1.58; 0.83-3.05). In very urgent CS, the mean decision-to-delivery interval (DDI) was 3 minutes longer in group 1 compared to group 2 (17 min vs 14 min, respectively), and there was no significant difference in neonatal pH and/or Apgar <7 at 5 minutes between the two groups (aOR=1.4; 0.5-4.3). Conclusion: The neonatal outcomes were comparable between CS performed after conversion from NA to GA and under GA from the outset, even in very urgent CS.