How can surgical skills in laparoscopic colon surgery be objectively assessed?-a scoping review

Objective assessment tools in laparoscopic or robotic-assisted gynecological surgery: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing emphasis on proficiency-based progression within surgical training. To enable this, clearly defined metrics for those newly acquired surgical skills are needed. These can be formulated in objective assessment tools. The aim of the present study was to systematically review the literature reporting on available tools for objective assessment of minimally invasive gynecological surgery (simulated) performance and evaluate their reliability and validity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search (1989-2022) was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science in accordance with PRISMA. The trial was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) ID: CRD42022376552. Randomized controlled trials, prospective comparative studies, prospective single-group (with pre- and post-training assessment) or consensus studies that reported on the development, validation or usage of assessment tools of surgical performance in minimally invasive gynecological surgery, were included. Three independent assessors assessed study setting and validity evidence according to a contemporary framework of validity, which was adapted from Messick's validity framework. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the modified medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI) checklist. Heterogeneity in data reporting on types of tools, data collection, study design, definition of expertise (novice vs. experts) and statistical values prevented a meaningful meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 19 746 titles and abstracts were screened of which 72 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 37 different assessment tools were identified of which 13 represented manual global assessment tools, 13 manual procedure-specific assessment tools and 11 automated performance metrices. Only two tools showed substantive evidence of validity. Reliability and validity per tool were provided. No assessment tools showed direct correlation between tool scores and patient related outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing objective assessment tools lack evidence on predicting patient outcomes and suffer from limitations in transferability outside of the research environment, particularly for automated performance metrics. Future research should prioritize filling these gaps while integrating advanced technologies like kinematic data and AI for robust, objective surgical skill assessment within gynecological advanced surgical training programs.

Training and assessment for colorectal surgery and appendicectomy- a systematic review

AIM

There is currently an increased focus on competency-based training, in which training and assessment play a crucial role. The aim of this systematic review is to create an overview of hands-on training methods and assessment tools for appendicectomy and colon and rectal surgery procedures using either an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach.

METHOD

A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. We conducted the last search on 9 March 2023. All published papers describing hands-on training, evaluation of performance data and development of assessment tools were eligible. The quality of studies and the validity evidence of assessment tools are reported.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were identified. Laparoscopic assessment tools are abundant, but the literature still lacks good-quality assessment tools for open appendicectomy, robotic colectomy and open rectal surgery. Overall, there is a lack of discussion regarding the establishment of pass/fail standards and the consequences of assessment. Virtual reality simulation is used more for appendicectomy than colorectal procedures. Only a few of the studies investigating training were of acceptable quality. There is a need for high-quality studies in open and robotic-assisted colon surgery and all approaches to rectal surgery.

CONCLUSION

This review provides an overview of current training methods and assessment tools and identifies where more research is needed based on the quality of the studies and the current validity evidence.

Video-based tools for surgical quality assessment of technical skills in laparoscopic procedures: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Quality of surgery has substantial impact on both short- and long-term clinical outcomes. This stresses the need for objective surgical quality assessment (SQA) for education, clinical practice and research purposes. The aim of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of all video-based objective SQA tools in laparoscopic procedures and their validity to objectively assess surgical performance.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase.com and Web of Science were systematically searched by two reviewers to identify all studies focusing on video-based SQA tools of technical skills in laparoscopic surgery performed in a clinical setting. Evidence on validity was evaluated using a modified validation scoring system.

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies with a total of 41 video-based SQA tools were identified. These tools were used in 9 different fields of laparoscopic surgery and were divided into 4 categories: the global assessment scale (GAS), the error-based assessment scale (EBAS), the procedure-specific assessment tool (PSAT) and artificial intelligence (AI). The number of studies focusing on these four categories were 21, 6, 31 and 3, respectively. Twelve studies validated the SQA tool with clinical outcomes. In 11 of those studies, a positive association between surgical quality and clinical outcomes was found.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review included a total of 41 unique video-based SQA tools to assess surgical technical skills in various domains of laparoscopic surgery. This study suggests that validated SQA tools enable objective assessment of surgical performance with relevance for clinical outcomes, which can be used for training, research and quality improvement programs.