Assessment methods in laparoscopic colorectal surgery:a systematic review of available instruments

Background: Laparoscopic surgery has become the golden standard for many procedures, requiring new skills and training methods. The aim of this review is to appraise literature on assessment methods for laparoscopic colorectal procedures and quantify these methods for implementation in surgical training. Materials and methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched in October 2022 for studies reporting learning and assessment methods for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Quality was scored using the Downs and Black checklist. Included articles were categorized in procedure-based assessment methods and non-procedure-based assessment methods. A second distinction was made between capability for formative and/or summative assessment. Results: In this systematic review, nineteen studies were included. These studies showed large heterogeneity despite categorization. Median quality score was 15 (range 0–26). Fourteen studies were categorized as procedure-based assessment methods (PBA), and five as non-procedure-based assessment methods. Three studies were applicable for summative assessment. Conclusions: The results show a considerable diversity in assessment methods with varying quality and suitability. To prevent a sprawl of assessment methods, we argue for selection and development of available high-quality assessment methods. A procedure-based structure combined with an objective assessment scale and possibility for summative assessment should be cornerstones.</p

Procedure-based assessment for laparoscopic cholecystectomy can replace global rating scales

Introduction Global rating scales (GRSs) such as the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) and Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Surgery (GOALS) are assessment methods for surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to establish construct validity of Procedure-Based Assessment (PBA) and to compare PBA with GRSs for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Material and methods OSATS and GOALS GRSs were compared with PBA in their ability to discriminate between levels of performance between trainees who can perform the procedure independently and those who cannot. Three groups were formed based on the number of procedures performed by the trainee: novice (1-10), intermediate (11-20) and experienced (>20). Differences between groups were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results Increasing experience correlated significantly with higher GRSs and PBA scores (all p < .001). Scores of novice and intermediate groups overlapped substantially on the OSATS (p = .1) and GOALS (p = .1), while the PBA discriminated between these groups (p = .03). The median score in the experienced group was higher with less dispersion for PBA (97.2[85.3-100]) compared to OSATS (82.1[60.7-100]) and GOALS (80[60-100]). Conclusion For assessing skill level or the capability of performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy independently, PBA has a higher discriminative ability compared to the GRSs

Defining Global Benchmarks in Elective Secondary Bariatric Surgery Comprising Conversional, Revisional, and Reversal Procedures

Objective: To define "best possible" outcomes for secondary bariatric surgery (BS). Background: Management of poor response and of long-term complications after BS is complex and under-investigated. Indications and types of reoperations vary widely and postoperative complication rates are higher compared to primary BS. Methods: Out of 44,884 BS performed in 18 high-volume centers from 4 continents between 06/2013-05/2019, 5,349 (12%) secondary BS cases were identified. Twenty-one outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of centers. Benchmark cases had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, thromboembolic events, BMI> 50 kg/m2 or age> 65 years. Results: The benchmark cohort included 3143 cases, mainly females (85%), aged 43.8 ± 10 years, 8.4 ± 5.3 years after primary BS, with a BMI 35.2 ± 7 kg/m2. Main indications were insufficient weight loss (43%) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease/dysphagia (25%). 90-days postoperatively, 14.6% of benchmark patients presented ≥1 complication, mortality was 0.06% (n = 2). Significantly higher morbidity was observed in non-benchmark cases (OR 1.37) and after conversional/reversal or revisional procedures with gastrointestinal suture/stapling (OR 1.84). Benchmark cutoffs for conversional BS were ≤4.5% re-intervention, ≤8.3% re-operation 90-days postoperatively. At 2-years (IQR 1-3) 15.6% of benchmark patients required a reoperation. Conclusion: Secondary BS is safe, although postoperative morbidity exceeds the established benchmarks for primary BS. The excess morbidity is due to an increased risk of gastrointestinal leakage and higher need for intensive care. The considerable rate of tertiary BS warrants expertise and future research to optimize the management of non-success after BS

30-Day Morbidity and Mortality of Bariatric Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Multinational Cohort Study of 7704 Patients from 42 Countries.

BACKGROUND There are data on the safety of cancer surgery and the efficacy of preventive strategies on the prevention of postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 in these patients. But there is little such data for any elective surgery. The main objectives of this study were to examine the safety of bariatric surgery (BS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to determine the efficacy of perioperative COVID-19 protective strategies on postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 rates. METHODS We conducted an international cohort study to determine all-cause and COVID-19-specific 30-day morbidity and mortality of BS performed between 01/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. RESULTS Four hundred ninety-nine surgeons from 185 centres in 42 countries provided data on 7704 patients. Elective primary BS (n = 7084) was associated with a 30-day morbidity of 6.76% (n = 479) and a 30-day mortality of 0.14% (n = 10). Emergency BS, revisional BS, insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and untreated obstructive sleep apnoea were associated with increased complications on multivariable analysis. Forty-three patients developed symptomatic COVID-19 postoperatively, with a higher risk in non-whites. Preoperative self-isolation, preoperative testing for SARS-CoV-2, and surgery in institutions not concurrently treating COVID-19 patients did not reduce the incidence of postoperative COVID-19. Postoperative symptomatic COVID-19 was more likely if the surgery was performed during a COVID-19 peak in that country. CONCLUSIONS BS can be performed safely during the COVID-19 pandemic with appropriate perioperative protocols. There was no relationship between preoperative testing for COVID-19 and self-isolation with symptomatic postoperative COVID-19. The risk of postoperative COVID-19 risk was greater in non-whites or if BS was performed during a local peak

Effect of BMI on safety of bariatric surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, procedure choice, and safety protocols - An analysis from the GENEVA Study

Background: It has been suggested that patients with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of &gt; 60 kg/m2 should be offered expedited Bariatric Surgery (BS) during the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The main objective of this study was to assess the safety of this approach. Methods: We conducted a global study of patients who underwent BS between 1/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Patients were divided into three groups according to their preoperative BMI -Group I (BMI &lt; 50 kg/m2), Group II (BMI 50-60 kg/m2), and Group III (BMI &gt; 60 kg/m2). The effect of preoperative BMI on 30-day morbidity and mortality, procedure choice, COVID-19 specific safety protocols, and comorbidities was assessed. Results: This study included 7084 patients (5197;73.4 % females). The mean preoperative weight and BMI were 119.49 &amp; PLUSMN; 24.4 Kgs and 43.03 &amp; PLUSMN; 6.9 Kg/m2, respectively. Group I included 6024 (85 %) patients, whereas Groups II and III included 905 (13 %) and 155 (2 %) patients, respectively.The 30-day mortality rate was higher in Group III (p = 0.001). The complication rate and COVID-19 infection were not different. Comorbidities were significantly more likely in Group III (p = &lt; 0.001). A significantly higher proportion of patients in group III received Sleeve Gastrectomy or One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass compared to other groups. Patients with a BMI of &gt; 70 kg/m2 had a 30-day mortality of 7.7 % (2/26). None of these patients underwent a Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass. Conclusion: The 30-day mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with BMI &gt; 60 kg/m2. There was, however, no significant difference in complications rates in different BMI groups, probably due to differences in procedure selection

Safety of Bariatric Surgery in ≥ 65-Year-Old Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background Age &gt;= 65 years is regarded as a relative contraindication for bariatric surgery. Advanced age is also a recognised risk factor for adverse outcomes with Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) which continues to wreak havoc on global populations. This study aimed to assess the safety of bariatric surgery (BS) in this particular age group during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison with the younger cohort.Methods We conducted a prospective international study of patients who underwent BS between 1/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Patients were divided into two groups - patients &gt;= 65-years-old (Group I) and patients &lt; 65-years-old (Group II). The two groups were compared for 30-day morbidity and mortality.Results There were 149 patients in Group 1 and 6923 patients in Group II. The mean age, preoperative weight, and BMI were 67.6 +/- 2.5 years, 119.5 +/- 24.5 kg, and 43 +/- 7 in Group I and 39.8 +/- 11.3 years, 117.7 +/- 20.4 kg, and 43.7 +/- 7 in Group II, respectively. Approximately, 95% of patients in Group 1 had at least one co-morbidity compared to 68% of patients in Group 2 (p = &lt; 0.001). The 30-day morbidity was significantly higher in Group I ( 11.4%) compared to Group II (6.6%) (p = 0.022). However, the 30-day mortality and COVID-19 infection rates were not significantly different between the two groups.Conclusions Bariatric surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with a higher complication rate in those &gt;= 65 years of age compared to those &lt; 65 years old. However, the mortality and postoperative COVID-19 infection rates are not significantly different between the two groups

30-Day morbidity and mortality of bariatric metabolic surgery in adolescence during the COVID-19 pandemic – The GENEVA study

Background: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is an effective treatment for adolescents with severe obesity. Objectives: This study examined the safety of MBS in adolescents during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This was a global, multicentre and observational cohort study of MBS performed between May 01, 2020, and October 10,2020, in 68 centres from 24 countries. Data collection included in-hospital and 30-day COVID-19 and surgery-specific morbidity/mortality. Results: One hundred and seventy adolescent patients (mean age: 17.75 ± 1.30 years), mostly females (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;122, 71.8%), underwent MBS during the study period. The mean pre-operative weight and body mass index were 122.16 ± 15.92 kg and 43.7&nbsp;± 7.11 kg/m2, respectively. Although majority of patients had pre-operative testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;146; 85.9%), only 42.4% (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;72) of the patients were asked to self-isolate pre-operatively. Two patients developed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection post-operatively (1.2%). The overall complication rate was 5.3% (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;9). There was no mortality in this cohort. Conclusions: MBS in adolescents with obesity is safe during the COVID-19 pandemic when performed within the context of local precautionary procedures (such as pre-operative testing). The 30-day morbidity rates were similar to those reported pre-pandemic. These data will help facilitate the safe re-introduction of MBS services for this group of patients