Background
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) requires mastery of complex skills, for which diverse training methods have been developed. While some methods focus on precise instrument tracking and others on realistic practice scenarios, combining these aspects leads to increased costs and impractical setups.

The Leap Motion Controller (LMC) is a cost-effective device offering precise motion tracking, but previous studies found its utility in surgical training is limited by line-of-sight issues. This study aims to address this challenge.

Methods
A novel interface was developed for use of LMC for tracking MIS instruments during practice. To resolve the line-of-sight problem, the traditional enclosed working area was replaced with a single vertical barrier concealing the task while allowing the LMC to maintain a clear horizontal view of the instrument. Performance metrics included time to task completion and total path length of the instrument. Twenty-eight medical students participated, performing 40 consecutive trials each.

Results
The LMC provided precise tracking, effectively resolving line-of-sight issues. Participants improved significantly, with task completion time decreasing from 61 s (SD = 40) to 19 s (SD = 8) and path length from 2390 mm (SD = 2569) to 574 mm (SD = 348). Performance plateaued after 20 trials, with reduced variance for all outcomes.

Conclusions
The study successfully leveraged the LMC for tracking surgical instruments, overcoming previous limitations. The setup enables real-time monitoring, continuous movement tracking, and tactile interaction with physical objects. Its affordability and simplicity make it a promising tool for traditional and home-based MIS training, especially in resource-limited settings.

Objective
To obtain insight into adaptation processes of redefining normality and its influencing factors in relatives of patients with advanced cancer.

Methods
An exploratory qualitative study among relatives of patients with advanced cancer was conducted. Participants were purposively recruited. Ten in-depth individual (relative only) and 16 dyad (relative and patient together) interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by means of thematic analysis, drawing on elements of grounded theory, combining both inductive and deductive elements.

Results
Two adaptation processes of (redefining) normality were identified: assimilation and accommodation. The latter was found to be the main way of adapting to new events. Assimilative coping strategies entailed “continuing to do the same activities as done before the disease,” “difficulty accepting the situation,” “avoiding to think about the disease,” and “living in the short term.” Accommodative strategies involved “arranging practical matters,” “thinking about the future,” “doing what is feasible,” “engaging in new activities,” “accepting the situation,” “seeking distraction,” “living in the short term,” and “focusing on what truly matters in life.” The interplay between the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, a deteriorating disease status, and the accompanying uncertainty about the future was of influence on the relatives' coping strategies.

Conclusion
When the new situation is too divergent to assimilate, accommodation may be necessary for relatives to cope with the growing complexity of the consequences of their loved one's illness. Accommodative coping then involves accepting the changing reality and actively making the necessary adjustments to build resilience and cope with the new circumstances.

Objectives: The care needs of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives change throughout the disease trajectory. This study focused on the care-related problems and needs of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives. This was done from the perspective of centres for information and support. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from the eQuiPe study: an observational cohort study in which 40 Dutch hospitals participated. All adult patients with a diagnosis of a metastasised tumour and their relatives were eligible. Measures included information on the patients' and relatives' care problems and needs, assessed by the short version of the Problems and Needs in Palliative Care questionnaire. Socioeconomic demographics were also collected. Results: 1103 patients with advanced cancer and 831 relatives were included. Both patients (M=60.3, SD=29.0) and relatives (M=59.2, SD=26.6) experienced most problems in the domain of â € psychological issues'. Both patients (M=14.0, SD=24.2) and relatives (M=17.7, SD=25.7) most frequently reported unmet needs within this domain. The most often reported unmet need by patients was â € worrying about the future of my loved ones' (22.0%); for relatives this was â € fear for physical suffering of the patient' (32.8%). There was no clear relationship between socioeconomic demographics and the experienced unmet needs. Conclusions: The most often mentioned unmet needs consisted of fears and worries, followed by a broad range of topics within multiple domains. Centres for information and support may play a role in reducing the unmet needs of (potential) visitors as these centres provide support on a broad range of topics.