{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033366045142296366, 'fraction_numerical': 0.024860974811907098, 'mean_word_length': 4.156829679595278, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
P-756 Assessment of an oocyte retrieval simulation training program for residents: from training to clinical practice


 
 
 Does an oocyte retrieval simulation training program (ORSTP) improve the clinical performance of residents ?
 
 
 
 The ORSTP does not improve the residents’ clinical performance, but it helps lower their stress and improve their confidence during training.
 
 
 
 Simulation training currently plays an important role in medical education, and is recommended for residents and fellows in training by many international societies. Oocyte retrieval (OR) is an invasive procedure that has a direct impact on the success rate of an IVF cycle. Studies have shown that residents and fellows favor an ORSTP and find it beneficial, but few studies have assessed the actual impact of that training on their performance in clinical practice.
 
 
 
 We performed a prospective comparative study at the Angers university Hospital. We included all OR performed by residents between May 2017 and November 2020. 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 simulation training, but had started practicing progressively on patients with attending physicians (n = 329).
 
 
 
 Residents in the S group answered a questionnaire about their impressions at the end of the rotation. Our main outcome measures were the OR rate (ORR) (number of oocytes collected/number of follicles aspirated) during the first 3 months of the rotation (total rotation duration is 6 months) in the two groups, and the satisfaction rate of residents in the S group. Secondary outcomes included ORR during each month and at the end of the rotation.
 
 
 
 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%, p = 0.68). 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% (p = 0.13), 58% vs 59% (p = 0.82) et 58% vs 58% (p = 0.9), respectively). There was no significant difference in the rate of failed OR (3.3% vs 1.8%, p = 0.13) between the S and C group. There was one case of hemoperitoneum in both groups (p = 0.81). Finally, the satisfaction rate of residents in the S group was 83%. Out of the 6 residents in the S group, only one reported being stressed before the OR, and 5 were confident about the outcomes of their retrievals.
 
 
 
 Our study is limited by the monocentric design and the limited number of residents included.
 
 
 
 Even though the ORSTP did not improve the residents’ clinical performance, it had a positive psychological impact. Our findings need to be confirmed on a larger scale and in different settings in order to establish whether the ORSTP should be systematically added to the residents training programs.
 
 
 
 NCT0370025
