Background: Cost-effective methods to facilitate practical medical education are in high demand and the “mixed-reality” (MR) technology seems suitable to provide students with instructions when learning a new practical task. To evaluate a step-by-step mixed reality (MR) guidance system for instructing a practical medical procedure, we conducted a randomized, single-blinded prospective trial on medical students learning bladder catheter placement. Methods: We enrolled 164 medical students. Students were randomized into 2 groups and received instructions on how to perform bladder catheter placement on a male catheterization training model. One group (107 students) were given their instructions by an instructor, while the other group (57 students) were instructed via an MR guidance system using a Microsoft HoloLens. Both groups did hands on training. A standardized questionnaire covering previous knowledge, interest in modern technologies and a self-evaluation was filled out. In addition, students were asked to evaluate the system’s usability. We assessed both groups’s learning outcome via a standardized OSCE (objective structured clinical examination). Results: Our evaluation of the learning outcome revealed an average point value of 19.96 ± 2,42 for the control group and 21.49 ± 2.27 for the MR group - the MR group’s result was significantly better (p = 0.00). The self-evaluations revealed no difference between groups, however, the control group gave higher ratings when evaluating the quality of instructions. The MR system’s assessment showed less usability, with a cumulative SUS (system usability scale) score of 56.6 (lower half) as well as a cumulative score of 24.2 ± 7.3 (n = 52) out of 100 in the NASA task load index. Conclusions: MR is a promising tool for instructing practical skills, and has the potential to enable superior learning outcomes. Advances in MR technology are necessary to improve the usability of current systems. Trial registration: German Clinical Trial Register ID: DRKS00013186

Background: Antithrombotic therapy is complex and requires informed decisions and high therapy adherence. Several mobile phone apps exist to either support physicians in the management of antithrombotic therapies or to educate and support patients. For the majority of these apps, both their medical evidence and their development background are unknown. Objective: This review aims to investigate the available literature describing high-quality apps for managing antithrombotic therapy based on professional scientific information. Methods: Keywords and Medical Subject Heading terms were used to search MEDLINE via PubMed and Ovid between December 2019 and January 2022. Inclusion criteria were the availability of full text and publications in the English language. Apps that solely focused on atrial fibrillation were excluded. Qualitative findings were thematically synthesized and reported narratively. Results: Out of 149 identified records, 32 were classified as eligible. We identified four groups: (1) apps for patients supporting self-management of vitamin K antagonists, (2) apps for patients increasing therapy adherence, (3) educational apps for patients, and (4) apps for physicians in supporting guideline adherence. Conclusions: Throughout the evaluated data, patients from all age groups receiving antithrombotic drugs expressed the desire for a digital tool that could support their therapy management. In addition, physicians using mobile guideline-based apps may have contributed to decreased adverse event rates among their patients. In general, digital apps encompassing both user-friendly designs and scientific backgrounds may enhance the safety of antithrombotic therapies. However, our evaluation did not identify any apps that addressed all antithrombotic drugs in combination with perioperative stratification strategies. Currently, strict regulations for smartphone apps seem to negatively affect the development of new apps. Therefore, new legal policies for medical digital apps are urgently needed.

Background: Domain-specific large language models (LLMs) like Ortho GPT have potential advantages over general-purpose models in medical education, offering improved factual accuracy and contextual relevance. This study evaluates the performance of Ortho GPT against general LLMs and senior medical students on validated orthopedic examination questions. Methods: Six LLMs (Ortho GPT 4o, ChatGPT 4o, ChatGPT 3.5, Perplexity AI, DeepSeek-R1, and Llama 3.3-70B) were tested using multiple-choice items from final-year medical student orthopedic exams in German language. Each model answered identical questions under standardized zero-shot conditions; accuracy rates and item-level results were compared using McNemar’s test, Jaccard similarity, and point-biserial correlation with student difficulty ratings. Results: Ortho GPT achieved the highest accuracy across models. McNemar’s tests revealed the significant superiority of Ortho GPT over DeepSeek (p = 2.33 × 10⁻³⁵), Llama 3.3-70B (p = 1.11 × 10⁻³²), and Perplexity (p = 4.01 × 10⁻⁵). Differences between Ortho GPT and ChatGPT 4o were non-significant (p = 0.065), suggesting near-equivalent performance to the strongest general model. No LLM showed correlation with student item difficulty (|r| < 0.07, p > 0.05), indicating that models solved items independently of human-perceived difficulty. Jaccard indices suggested moderate overlap between Ortho GPT and ChatGPT 4o, but distinct response profiles compared with general LLMs. Conclusions: These findings illustrate the superiority of Ortho GPT in orthopedic exam accuracy and context relevance, attributed to its specialized training data. The domain-specific approach enables performance matching or exceeding top general LLMs in orthopedics, emphasizing the importance of domain specialization for reliable, curriculum-aligned support in medical education.

Background.: This monocentric, randomized controlled trial aims to compare the outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with magnetic double-J (DJ) stents versus conventional DJ stents. Specifically, we assessed stent-related symptoms, procedural difficulties, pain and duration of removal, and associated costs. Methods.: A total of 30 patients were randomly assigned to receive either a magnetic DJ (mDJ) stent or a conventional, standard DJ (sDJ) stent during kidney transplantation using the Lich-Gregoir technique. Quality of life was evaluated with the USSQ 7–10 d postoperation. sDJs stents were removed cystoscopically by a urologist while mDJ stents were removed bedside by a transplant surgeon. The duration of removal and procedure-associated pain were documented. Questionnaires for physicians and patients were used to assess peri-interventional experience and issues. Additionally, costs associated with the removal of both stents were analyzed. Results.: Quality of life showed no differences between the groups. Stent removal was successful in all cases, with no differences in duration of removal (P = 0.24) or major issues. Patients reported comparable pain levels during the removal of mDJs (P = 0.55) and higher satisfaction, although this was not statistically significant (P = 0.27). Cost analysis revealed a reduction of approximately €172 with the use of mDJ. Conclusions.: The use of mDJ stents in kidney transplantation is a safe alternative associated with comparable pain during removal. Additionally, it offers cost savings and reduces the logistical burden for both patients and hospitals.