Automated analysis of intraoperative phase in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A comparison of one attending surgeon and their residents

OBJECTIVE: This study compares the intraoperative phase times in laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by an attending surgeon and supervised residents over 10-years to assess operative times as a marker of performance and any impact of case severity on times. DESIGN: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos were uploaded to Touch Surgery™ Enterprise, a combined software and hardware solution for securely recording, storing, and analysing surgical videos, which provide analytics of intraoperative phase times. Case severity and visualisation of the critical view of safety (CVS) were manually assessed using modified 10-point intraoperative gallbladder scoring system (mG10) and CVS scores, respectively. Attending and residents' times were compared unmatched and matched by mG10. SETTING: Secondary analysis of anonymized laparoscopic cholecystectomy video, recorded as standard of care. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy a single UK hospital. Cases were performed by one attending and their residents. RESULTS: 159 (attending=96, resident=63) laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos and intraoperative phase times were reviewed on Touch Surgery™ Enterprise and analyzed. Attending cases were more challenging (p=0.037). Residents achieved higher CVS scores (p=0.034) and showed longer dissection of hepatocystic triangle (HCT) times (p=0.012) in more challenging cases. Residents' total operative time (p=0.001) and dissection of HCT (p=0.002) times exceeded the attending's in low-severity matched cases (mG10=1). Residents' total operative times (p<0.001), port insertion/gallbladder exposure (p=0.032), and dissection of HCT (p<0.001) exceeded the attending's in matched cases (mG10=2). Residents' total operative (p<0.001), dissection of HCT (p<0.001), and gallbladder dissection (p=0.010) times exceeded the attendings in unmatched cases. CONCLUSIONS: Residents' total operative and dissection of HCT times significantly exceeded the attending's unmatched cases and low-severity matched cases which could suggest training need, however, also reflects an expected assessment of competence, and validates time as a marker of performance

The impact of virtual reality simulation training on operative performance in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Simulation training can improve the learning curve of surgical trainees. This research aimed to systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCT) evaluating the performance of junior surgical trainees following virtual reality training (VRT) and other training methods in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid SP), Web of Science, Scopus and LILACS were searched for trials randomizing participants to VRT or no additional training (NAT) or simulation training (ST). Outcomes of interest were the reported performance using global rating scores (GRS), the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS) and Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS), error counts and time to completion of task during laparoscopic cholecystectomy on either porcine models or humans. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. PROSPERO ID: CRD42020208499. RESULTS: A total of 351 titles/abstracts were screened and 96 full texts were reviewed. Eighteen RCT were included and 15 manuscripts had data available for meta-analysis. Thirteen studies compared VRT and NAT, and 4 studies compared VRT and ST. One study compared VRT with NAT and ST and reported GRS only. Meta-analysis showed OSATS score (mean difference (MD) 6.22, 95%CI 3.81 to 8.36, P < 0.001) and time to completion of task (MD -8.35 min, 95%CI 13.10 to 3.60, P = <0.001) significantly improved after VRT compared with NAT. No significant difference was found in GOALS score. No significant differences were found between VRT and ST groups. Intraoperative errors were reported as reduced in VRT groups compared with NAT but were not suitable for meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis suggests that performance measured by OSATS and time to completion of task is improved with VRT compared with NAT for junior trainee in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, conclusions are limited by methodological heterogeneity and more research is needed to quantify the potential benefit to surgical training

Surgical experience and identification of errors in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND: Surgical errors are acts or omissions resulting in negative consequences and/or increased operating time. This study describes surgeon-reported errors in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Intraoperative videos were uploaded and annotated on Touch SurgeryTM Enterprise. Participants evaluated videos for severity using a 10-point intraoperative cholecystitis grading score, and errors using Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment, which includes skill, consequence, and mechanism classifications. RESULTS: Nine videos were assessed by 8 participants (3 junior (specialist trainee (ST) 3-5), 2 senior trainees (ST6-8), and 3 consultants). Participants identified 550 errors. Positive relationships were seen between total operating time and error count (r2 = 0.284, P < 0.001), intraoperative grade score and error count (r2 = 0.578, P = 0.001), and intraoperative grade score and total operating time (r2 = 0.157, P < 0.001). Error counts differed significantly across intraoperative phases (H(6) = 47.06, P < 0.001), most frequently at dissection of the hepatocystic triangle (total 282; median 33.5 (i.q.r. 23.5-47.8, range 15-63)), ligation/division of cystic structures (total 124; median 13.5 (i.q.r. 12-19.3, range 10-26)), and gallbladder dissection (total 117; median 14.5 (i.q.r. 10.3-18.8, range 6-26)). There were no significant differences in error counts between juniors, seniors, and consultants (H(2) = 0.03, P = 0.987). Errors were classified differently. For dissection of the hepatocystic triangle, thermal injuries (50 in total) were frequently classified as executional, consequential errors; trainees classified thermal injuries as step done with excessive force, speed, depth, distance, time or rotation (29 out of 50), whereas consultants classified them as incorrect orientation (6 out of 50). For ligation/division of cystic structures, inappropriate clipping (60 errors in total), procedural errors were reported by junior trainees (6 out of 60), but not consultants. For gallbladder dissection, inappropriate dissection (20 errors in total) was reported in incorrect planes by consultants and seniors (6 out of 20), but not by juniors. Poor economy of movement (11 errors in total) was reported more by consultants (8 out of 11) than trainees (3 out of 11). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that surgical experience influences error interpretation, but the benefits for surgical training are currently unclear

Follow-up after surgery for gastric cancer: how to do it

There is no consensus on follow-up after gastric surgery for cancer, nor evidence that it improves outcomes. We investigated the impact of intensity of follow-up, comparing the regimens adopted by two centres, in Italy and in the UK. Patients who underwent surgery for gastric and junctional type-3 adenocarcinoma, between September 2009 and April 2013, at the Surgical Clinic, University of Brescia (Italy), and at the Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, University College London Hospital (UK), were identified. Patients' demographics, stage, recurrence rates, modality of detection and treatment were recorded. Overall survival and costs were compared between the two protocols. A total of 128 patients were included. Recurrence rates were similar (p = 0.349), with more than 70% diagnosed during regular follow-up appointments in both centres. At univariate and multivariate analysis, stage I and treatment of recurrence were associated with a better survival. Patients treated for recurrence at the Italian centre showed an almost significant better survival (p = 0.052). The intensive Italian surveillance protocol was associated with significant higher costs per year. Follow-up and early detection of recurrence did not affect survival in the analysed series, focused on periods in which chemotherapy was ineffective towards recurrence. However, intensive follow-up allowed a greater number of patients to receive a treatment for recurrence; this might prove useful in the next few years, when more effective chemotherapy combinations are expected to become available. The costs could be reduced by adopting a less intensive surveillance programme

Impact of question order on prioritisation of outcomes in the development of a core outcome set: A randomised controlled trial

Background: Core outcome set (COS) developers increasingly employ Delphi surveys to elicit stakeholders' opinions of which outcomes to measure and report in trials of a particular condition or intervention. Research outside of Delphi surveys and COS development demonstrates that question order can affect response rates and lead to 'context effects', where prior questions determine an item's meaning and influence responses. This study examined the impact of question order within a Delphi survey for a COS for oesophageal cancer surgery. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was nested within the Delphi survey. Patients and health professionals were randomised to receive a survey including clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the PRO section appeared first or last. Participants rated (1-9) the importance of 68 items for inclusion in a COS (ratings 7-9 considered 'essential'). Analyses considered the impact of question order on: (1) survey response rates; (2) participants' responses; and (3) items retained at end of the survey. Results: In total, 116 patients and 71 professionals returned completed surveys. Question order did not affect response rates among patients, but fewer professionals responded when clinical items appeared first (difference = 31.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.6-48.9%, P = 0.001). Question order led to different context effects within patients and professionals. While patients rated clinical items highly, irrespective of question order, more PROs were rated essential when appearing last rather than first (difference = 23.7%, 95% CI = 10.5-40.8%). Among professionals, the greatest impact was on clinical items; a higher percentage rated essential when appearing last (difference = 11.6%, 95% CI = 0.0-23.3%). An interaction between question order and the percentage of PRO/clinical items rated essential was observed for patients (P = 0.025) but not professionals (P = 0.357). Items retained for further consideration at the end of the survey were dependent on question order, with discordant items (retained by one question order group only) observed in patients (18/68 [26%]) and professionals (20/68 [29%]). Conclusions: In the development of a COS, participants' ratings of potential outcomes within a Delphi survey depend on the context (order) in which the outcomes are asked, consequently impacting on the final COS. Initial piloting is recommended with consideration of the randomisation of items in the survey to reduce potential bias. Trial registration: The randomised controlled trial reported within this paper was nested within the development of a core outcome set to investigate processes in core outcome set development. Outcomes were not health-related and trial registration was not therefore applicable.</p