Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study

Innovations in surgery for gallbladder cancer: A review of robotic surgery as a feasible and safe option

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted surgical techniques in the treatment of gallbladder cancer, comparing it with traditional open and laparoscopic methods.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature searched for comparative analyses of patient outcomes following robotic, open, and laparoscopic surgeries, focusing on oncological results and perioperative benefits.

RESULTS

Five total studies published between 2019 and 2023 were identified. Findings indicate that robotic-assisted surgery for gallbladder cancer is as effective as traditional methods in terms of oncological outcomes, with potential advantages in precision and perioperative recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery offers a viable and potentially advantageous alternative for gallbladder cancer treatment, warranting further research to confirm its benefits and establish comprehensive surgical guidelines.

Skill assessment based on clutch use in cross-platform robot-assisted surgery

BACKGROUND

Many studies have investigated the transfer of skills between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery (RAS). These studies have considered time, error, and clinical outcomes in the assessment of skill transfer. However, little is known about the specific operations of the surgeon. Clutch control use is an important skill in RAS. Therefore, the present study aimed to propose a novel objective algorithm based on computer vision that can automatically evaluate a surgeon's clutch use. Additionally, the study aimed to evaluate the correlation between clutch metrics and surgical skill on different surgical robot platforms.

METHODS

The robotic surgery training center of Wuhan University trained 30 laparoscopic surgeons as the study group between 2023 and 2024. Laparoscopic surgeons were trained by combining robotic simulator exercises and RAS animal experiments. During the training, video and hand movement data were collected. Hand movements identified by a skin-color model were combined with labeling information to classify clutch use. The metrics were validated on different robotic platforms (dv-Trainer, EDGE MP1000, Toumai™ MT1000, and DaVinci Xi system) and among surgeons with different surgical skill levels.

RESULTS

On the robotic simulator, clutch accuracy in the expert group was significantly higher than in the study group for all tasks. No significant differences were observed in the number of clutches between the expert and study groups. In the RAS experiment, the number of clutches decreased significantly for both study and expert groups. The accuracy was maintained at a high level in the expert group but decreased rapidly in the study group.

CONCLUSIONS

We proposed a new objective assessment of surgical skills, clutch use metrics, in cross-platform RAS. Additionally, we verified that the metrics significantly correlated with the surgical skill levels of the surgeons.

Structured feedback and operative video debriefing with critical view of safety annotation in training of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

The learning curve in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is lengthened compared to open surgery. It has been reported that structured feedback and training in teams of two trainees improves MIS training and MIS performance. Annotation of surgical images and videos may prove beneficial for surgical training. This study investigated whether structured feedback and video debriefing, including annotation of critical view of safety (CVS), have beneficial learning effects in a predefined, multi-modal MIS training curriculum in teams of two trainees.

METHODS

This randomized-controlled single-center study included medical students without MIS experience (n = 80). The participants first completed a standardized and structured multi-modal MIS training curriculum. They were then randomly divided into two groups (n = 40 each), and four laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs) were performed on ex-vivo porcine livers each. Students in the intervention group received structured feedback after each LC, consisting of LC performance evaluations through tutor-trainee joint video debriefing and CVS video annotation. Performance was evaluated using global and LC-specific Objective Structured Assessments of Technical Skills (OSATS) and Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) scores.

RESULTS

The participants in the intervention group had higher global and LC-specific OSATS as well as global and LC-specific GOALS scores than the participants in the control group (25.5 ± 7.3 vs. 23.4 ± 5.1, p = 0.003; 47.6 ± 12.9 vs. 36 ± 12.8, p < 0.001; 17.5 ± 4.4 vs. 16 ± 3.8, p < 0.001; 6.6 ± 2.3 vs. 5.9 ± 2.1, p = 0.005). The intervention group achieved CVS more often than the control group (1. LC: 20 vs. 10 participants, p = 0.037, 2. LC: 24 vs. 8, p = 0.001, 3. LC: 31 vs. 8, p < 0.001, 4. LC: 31 vs. 10, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Structured feedback and video debriefing with CVS annotation improves CVS achievement and ex-vivo porcine LC training performance based on OSATS and GOALS scores.

IDEAL-D Phase 0 Evaluation of the Avatera System in Robot-Assisted Prostate, Bladder and Renal Surgery

Purpose: To evaluate the utilization of novel Avatera system in urological operations according to the IDEAL-D framework recommendations for high-risk invasive surgical devices. Materials and Methods: Three surgeons attempted to perform 23 upper and lower urinary tract operations on human cadavers and in live porcine models using the Avatera system. Total operative time and the duration of the substeps were evaluated. Surgical performance was assessed with the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) score. Suturing was rated using the technical checklist for the assessment of suturing in robotic surgery. Attending surgeons rated their satisfaction with the Avatera system on a scale of 1-5. Results and Limitation: Seventeen out of 18 operations performed on cadavers were completed, while one pyeloplasty was discontinued. All five operations performed in porcine models were completed. Although 1 pig was euthanized on the fifth postoperative day, its symptoms were unrelated to surgery. Mean GEARS and Suturing scores in the upper urinary tract were 29 ± 0.7 and 29.5 ± 0.95, respectively, and in the lower urinary 28.5 ± 1.2 and 29.5 ± 0.5, respectively. Surgeons' satisfaction was high or very high for all procedures. Conclusions: The Avatera system was associated with good surgical performance and high surgeons' satisfaction rates. All urological procedures performed were shown to be feasible, with comparable risks to other robot-assisted surgery systems.

Review of robotic surgery platforms and end effectors

In the last 50 years, the number of companies producing automated devices for surgical operations has grown extensively. The population started to be more confident about the technology capabilities. The first patents related to surgical robotics are expiring and this knowledge is becoming a common base for the development of future surgical robotics. The review describes some of the most popular companies manufacturing surgical robots. The list of the company does not pretend to be exhaustive but wishes to give an overview of the sector. Due to space constraints, only a limited selction of companies is reported. Most of the companies described are born in America or Europe. Advantages and limitations of each product firm are described. A special focus is given to the end effectors; their shape and dexterity are crucial for the positive outcome of the surgical operations. New robots are developed every year, and existing robots are allowed to perform a wider range of procedures. Robotic technologies improve the abilities of surgeons in the domains of urology, gynecology, neurology, spine surgery, orthopedic reconstruction (knee, shoulder), hair restoration, oral surgery, thoracic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and endoscopy.

Evaluation of objective tools and artificial intelligence in robotic surgery technical skills assessment: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a need to standardize training in robotic surgery, including objective assessment for accreditation. This systematic review aimed to identify objective tools for technical skills assessment, providing evaluation statuses to guide research and inform implementation into training curricula.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Ovid Embase/Medline, PubMed and Web of Science were searched. Inclusion criterion: robotic surgery technical skills tools. Exclusion criteria: non-technical, laparoscopy or open skills only. Manual tools and automated performance metrics (APMs) were analysed using Messick's concept of validity and the Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence and Recommendation (LoR). A bespoke tool analysed artificial intelligence (AI) studies. The Modified Downs-Black checklist was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-seven studies were analysed, identifying: 8 global rating scales, 26 procedure-/task-specific tools, 3 main error-based methods, 10 simulators, 28 studies analysing APMs and 53 AI studies. Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills and the da Vinci Skills Simulator were the most evaluated tools at LoR 1 (OCEBM). Three procedure-specific tools, 3 error-based methods and 1 non-simulator APMs reached LoR 2. AI models estimated outcomes (skill or clinical), demonstrating superior accuracy rates in the laboratory with 60 per cent of methods reporting accuracies over 90 per cent, compared to real surgery ranging from 67 to 100 per cent.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual and automated assessment tools for robotic surgery are not well validated and require further evaluation before use in accreditation processes.PROSPERO: registration ID CRD42022304901.

Transfer of skills between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery is today well-implemented in many surgical specialties, but requires another skill set than laparoscopy. Most often, robot-assisted surgery is considered add-on to laparoscopic skills but very little is known about the transfer of skills. The aim of the study was to examine to what extent surgical skills are transferable between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in three databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, and Web of Science). Studies investigating transfer of skills between laparoscopy and robot-assisted surgery in either a phantom-based, simulation-based, animal model, or clinical setting were eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment was done using the Medical education research study quality instrument and educational New Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Of 15,610 studies identified, 89 studies continued to full-text reading, and 37 studies were included. Four studies were found non-comparable and were left out of the results for the primary outcome. All 33 studies explored transfer from laparoscopy to robot-assisted surgery and 17 found a positive transfer whereas 15 did not. Only 11 studies explored transfer from robot-assisted surgery to laparoscopy, of which only three found a positive transfer.

CONCLUSION

An almost equal number of publications found a positive transfer and no transfer from laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery. Fewer studies explored the transfer from robot-assisted surgery to laparoscopy. Very little evidence supports that surgeons trained solely in robot-assisted surgery can perform laparoscopy. This must be considered in future training programs as robot-assisted surgery is expected to become the first-in-line modality for many future surgeons.

Robotic pancreas surgery for pancreatic cancer

Since the introduction of robotic pancreas surgery in the early 2000s, there has been significant increase in the adoption of the robot to perform complex pancreatic resections. However, utilization of the robot for pancreatic cancer has lagged behind due to concern for inferior oncologic outcomes. Furthermore, research in this field has previously been limited to small, single institution observational studies. Recent and ongoing randomized control trials in robotic distal pancreatectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy have aimed to address concerns regarding the use of robotic techniques in pancreatic cancer. Together, these studies suggest similar, if not improved, outcomes with a robotic approach, including shorter hospital stays, expedited recovery with less post-operative complications, and equivalent resection rates, when compared to the standard open approaches. Additionally, surgical training in robotic pancreas surgery is of equal importance for patient safety. This review summarizes the available literature on the efficacy and safety of robotic pancreas surgery for pancreatic cancer, with specific focus on robotic distal pancreatectomy and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The possibilities of minimally invasive cholecystectomy have emerged since the beginning of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC). This study aimed to compare the feasibility, safety, and pain scores between SSRC and SILC.

Methods

The authors searched randomized or non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies in PubMed, EuroPMC, and ClinicalTrials.gov from April 2012 until April 2022. The authors analyzed the operation time, hospital stay, blood loss volume, conversion rate, intraoperative complication rates, postoperative complications, visual analog scale (VAS) immediately after surgery, and VAS at hospital discharge. This study aligned with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.

Results

Thirteen studies were selected with 817 and 757 patients who underwent SSRC and SILC. Thus, this study demonstrated a lower incidence of intraoperative complication rates [relative risk (RR) 0.57 (95% CI 0.34-0.96), p = 0.03] and lesser VAS score at hospital discharge [Std. Mean Difference (SMD) -0.23 (95% CI -0.46, -0.01), p = 0.04] in the SSRC group. Regarding operation time and cost, SSRC revealed a longer time [SMD 1.02 (95% CI 0.45, 1.59), p = 0.0004] and higher cost [SMD 4.18 (95% CI 1.77, 6.58), p < 0.00001], respectively. Meanwhile, SSRC did not differ from SILC during a hospital stay, blood loss volume, conversion rate, postoperative complication rates, and VAS immediately after surgery.

Conclusions

Concerning intraoperative complication rates and VAS score at hospital discharge, SSRC was superior to SILC. Thus, SSRC is considered a feasible and safe procedure.

Short-term outcomes and costs analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a retrospective single-center analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted surgery is an alternative technique for patients undergoing minimal invasive cholecystectomy (CHE). The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic CHE, previously described as the major disadvantage of the robotic system, in a single Austrian tertiary center.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis was carried out of all patients who underwent an elective minimally invasive cholecystectomy between January 2010 and August 2020 at our tertiary referral institution. Patients were divided into two groups: robotic-assisted CHE (RC) and laparoscopic CHE (LC) and compared according to demographic data, short-term postoperative outcomes and costs.

RESULTS

In the study period, 2088 elective minimal invasive cholecystectomies were performed. Of these, 220 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. One hundred ten (50%) patients underwent LC, and 110 patients RC. There was no significant difference in the mean operation time between both groups (RC: 60.2 min vs LC: 62.0 min; p = 0.58). Postoperative length of stay was the same in both groups (RC: 2.65 days vs LC: 2.65 days, p = 1). Overall hospital costs were slightly higher in the robotic group with a total of €2088 for RC versus €1726 for LC.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is a safe and feasible alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Since there are no significant clinical and cost differences between the two procedures, RC is a justified operation for training the whole operation team in handling the system as a first step procedure. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to confirm these conclusions.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic bowel anastomoses: randomized crossover in vivo experimental study

BACKGROUND

Initial learning curves are potentially shorter in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) than in conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS). There is little evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, there is limited evidence how skills from LS transfer to RAS.

METHODS

A randomized controlled, assessor blinded crossover study to compare how RAS naïve surgeons (n = 40) performed linear-stapled side-to-side bowel anastomoses in an in vivo porcine model with LS and RAS. Technique was rated using the validated anastomosis objective structured assessment of skills (A-OSATS) score and the conventional OSATS score. Skill transfer from LS to RAS was measured by comparing the RAS performance of LS novices and LS experienced surgeons. Mental and physical workload was measured with the NASA-task load index (NASA-Tlx) and the Borg-scale.

OUTCOMES

In the overall cohort, there were no differences between RAS and LS for surgical performance (A-OSATS, time, OSATS). Surgeons that were naïve in both LS and RAS had significantly higher A-OSATS scores in RAS (Mean (Standard deviation (SD)): LS: 48.0 ± 12.1; RAS: 52.0 ± 7.5); p = 0.044) mainly deriving from better bowel positioning (LS: 8.7 ± 1.4; RAS: 9.3 ± 1.0; p = 0.045) and closure of enterotomy (LS: 12.8 ± 5.5; RAS: 15.6 ± 4.7; p = 0.010). There was no statistically significant difference in how LS novices and LS experienced surgeons performed in RAS [Mean (SD): novices: 48.9 ± 9.0; experienced surgeons: 55.9 ± 11.0; p = 0.540]. Mental and physical demand was significantly higher after LS.

CONCLUSION

The initial performance was improved for RAS versus LS for linear stapled bowel anastomosis, whereas workload was higher for LS. There was limited transfer of skills from LS to RAS.

Crossover-effects in technical skills between laparoscopy and robot-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted surgery is often performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. However, this technique requires a different set of technical skills and surgeons are expected to alternate between these approaches. The aim of this study is to investigate the crossover effects when switching between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery.

METHODS

An international multicentre crossover study was conducted. Trainees with distinctly different levels of experience were divided into three groups (novice, intermediate, expert). Each trainee performed six trials of a standardized suturing task using a laparoscopic box trainer and six trials using the da Vinci surgical robot. Both systems were equipped with the ForceSense system, measuring five force-based parameters for objective assessment of tissue handling skills. Statistical comparison was done between the sixth and seventh trial to identify transition effects. Unexpected changes in parameter outcomes after the seventh trial were further investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 720 trials, performed by 60 participants, were analysed. The expert group increased their tissue handling forces with 46% (maximum impulse 11.5 N/s to 16.8 N/s, p = 0.05), when switching from robot-assisted surgery to laparoscopy. When switching from laparoscopy to robot-assisted surgery, intermediates and experts significantly decreased in motion efficiency (time (sec), resp. 68 vs. 100, p = 0.05, and 44 vs. 84, p = 0.05). Further investigation between the seventh and ninth trial showed that the intermediate group increased their force exertion with 78% (5.1 N vs. 9.1 N, p = 0.04), when switching to robot-assisted surgery.

CONCLUSION

The crossover effects in technical skills between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery are highly depended on the prior experience with laparoscopic surgery. Where experts can alternate between approaches without impairment of technical skills, novices and intermediates should be aware of decay in efficiency of movement and tissue handling skills that could impact patient safety. Therefore, additional simulation training is advised to prevent from undesired events.

Video-based training of situation awareness enhances minimally invasive surgical performance: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many training curricula were introduced to deal with the challenges that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) presents to the surgeon. Situational awareness (SA) is the ability to process information effectively. It depends on general cognitive abilities and can be divided into three steps: perceiving cues, linking cues to knowledge and understanding their relevance, and predicting possible outcomes. Good SA is crucial to predict and avoid complications and respond efficiently. This study aimed to introduce the concept of SA into laparoscopic training.

METHODS

This is a prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted at the MIS Training Center of Heidelberg University Hospital. Video sessions showing the steps of the laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) were used for cognitive training. The intervention group trained SA with interposed questions inserted into the video clips. The identical video clips, without questions, were presented to the control group. Performance was assessed with validated scores such as the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) during LC.

RESULTS

72 participants were enrolled of which 61 were included in the statistical analysis. The SA-group performed LC significantly better (OSATS-Score SA: 67.0 ± 11.5 versus control: 59.1 ± 14.0, p value = 0.034) and with less errors (error score SA: 3.5 ± 1.9 versus control: 4.7 ± 2.0, p value = 0.027). No difference in the time taken to complete the procedure was found. The benefit assessment analysis showed no difference between the groups in terms of perceived learning effect, concentration, or expediency. However, most of the control group indicated retrospectively that they believed they would have benefitted from the intervention.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that video-based SA training for laparoscopic novices has a positive impact on performance and error rate. SA training should thus be included as one aspect besides simulation and real cases in a multimodal curriculum to improve the efficiency of laparoscopic surgical skills training.

Force-based assessment of tissue handling skills in simulation training for robot-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

Although robotic-assisted surgery is increasingly performed, objective assessment of technical skills is lacking. The aim of this study is to provide validity evidence for objective assessment of technical skills for robotic-assisted surgery.

METHODS

An international multicenter study was conducted with participants from the academic hospitals Heidelberg University Hospital (Germany, Heidelberg) and the Amsterdam University Medical Centers (The Netherlands, Amsterdam). Trainees with distinctly different levels of robotic surgery experience were divided into three groups (novice, intermediate, expert) and enrolled in a training curriculum. Each trainee performed six trials of a standardized suturing task using the da Vinci Surgical System. Using the ForceSense system, five force-based parameters were analyzed, for objective assessment of tissue handling skills. Mann-Whitney U test and linear regression were used to analyze performance differences and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to analyze skills progression.

RESULTS

A total of 360 trials, performed by 60 participants, were analyzed. Significant differences between the novices, intermediates and experts were observed regarding the total completion time (41 s vs 29 s vs 22 s p = 0.003), mean non zero force (29 N vs 33 N vs 19 N p = 0.032), maximum impulse (40 Ns vs 31 Ns vs 20 Ns p = 0.001) and force volume (38 N³ vs 32 N³ vs 22 N³ p = 0.018). Furthermore, the experts showed better results in mean non-zero force (22 N vs 13 N p = 0.015), maximum impulse (24 Ns vs 17 Ns p = 0.043) and force volume (25 N³ vs 16 N³ p = 0.025) compared to the intermediates (p ≤ 0.05). Lastly, learning curve improvement was observed for the total task completion time, mean non-zero force, maximum impulse and force volume (p ≤ 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Construct validity for force-based assessment of tissue handling skills in robot-assisted surgery is established. It is advised to incorporate objective assessment and feedback in robot-assisted surgery training programs to determine technical proficiency and, potentially, to prevent tissue trauma.

Safe implementation of hand held steerable laparoscopic instruments: a survey among EAES surgeons

The complexity of handheld steerable laparoscopic instruments (SLI) may impair the learning curve compared to conventional instruments when first utilized. This study aimed to provide the current state of interest in the use of SLI, the current use of these in daily practice and the type of training which is conducted before using SLI in the operating room (OR) on real patients. An online survey was distributed by European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) Executive Office to all active members, between January 4th and February 3rd, 2020. The survey consisted of 14 questions regarding the usage and training of steerable laparoscopic instruments. A total of 83 members responded, coming from 33 different countries. Twenty three percent of the respondents using SLI, were using the instruments routinely and of these 21% had not received any formal training in advance of using the instruments in real patients. Of all responding EAES members, 41% considered the instruments to potentially compromise patient safety due to their complexity, learning curve and the inexperience of the surgeons. The respondents reported the three most important aspects of a possible steerable laparoscopic instruments training curriculum to be: hands-on training, safe tissue handling and suturing practice. Finally, a major part of the respondents consider force/pressure feedback data to be of significant importance for implementation of training and assessment of safe laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Training and assessment of skills regarding safe implementation of steerable laparoscopic instruments is lacking. The respondents stressed the need for specific hands-on training during which feedback and assessment of skills should be guaranteed before operating on real patients.

Validation of the portable virtual reality training system for robotic surgery (PoLaRS): a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

As global use of surgical robotic systems is steadily increasing, surgical simulation can be an excellent way for robotic surgeons to acquire and retain their skills in a safe environment. To address the need for training in less wealthy parts of the world, an affordable surgical robot simulator (PoLaRS) was designed.

METHODS

The aim of this pilot study is to compare learning curve data of the PoLaRS prototype with those of Intuitive Surgical's da Vinci Skills Simulator (dVSS) and to establish face- and construct validity. Medical students were divided into two groups; the test group (n = 18) performing tasks on PoLaRS and dVSS, and the control group (n = 20) only performing tasks on the dVSS. The performance parameters were Time, Path length, and the number of collisions. Afterwards, the test group participants filled in a questionnaire regarding both systems.

RESULTS

A total of 528 trials executed by 38 participants were measured and included for analyses. The test group significantly improved in Time, Path Length and Collisions during the PoLaRS test phase (P ≤ 0.028). No differences was found between the test group and the control group in the dVSS performances during the post-test phase. Learning curves showed similar shapes between both systems, and between both groups. Participants recognized the potential benefits of simulation training on the PoLaRS system.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgical skills improved during training with PoLaRS. This shows the potential of PoLaRS to become an affordable alternative to current surgical robot simulators. Validation with similar tasks and different expert levels is needed before implementing the training system into robotic training curricula.

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.