Extrapolative Validity Evidence of the Anastomosis Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (A-OSATS) for Robotic Ileocolic Anastomosis

OBJECTIVE

To collect validity evidence for the use of the Anastomosis Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (A-OSATS) instrument, which has been developed to evaluate performance of a minimally invasive side-to-side bowel anastomosis with hand-sewn common enterotomy.

DESIGN

Residents performed a robotic ileocolic anastomosis simulation on an ex vivo porcine model. Faculty scored each resident with the A-OSATS and performed a provocative leak test on the completed anastomoses. Residents were reassessed on the sewing sub-score 1 month later. Data were compared with parametric and nonparametric analysis.

SETTING

Single academic general surgery residency PARTICIPANTS: PGY-4 and -5 general surgery residents (n = 17) RESULTS: PGY-5s performed better than PGY-4s in repeat A-OSATS sewing sub-score (mean 55/55 ± 0 vs 43 ± 4.9, p < 0.001) and time to complete (minutes, mean 14.5 ± 4.9 vs 21.2 ± 3.9, p = 0.01). There was a strong correlation between A-OSATS score and time (r = -0.67, p = 0.005). For the initial assessment, there was no significant difference in mean A-OSATS score between anastomoses that leaked and those that did not leak (137.3 ± 14.5 vs 150.1 ± 11.2, p = 0.098), but on repeat assessment, intact anastomoses had a higher mean A-OSATS sewing sub-score than those that leaked (52.2 ± 4.7 vs 39 ± 3.5, p = 0.007). There was no significant difference between initial A-OSATS score and repeat score (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

We provide extrapolative validity evidence for the A-OSATS instrument by comparing A-OSATS score to time to sew, provocative leak test, and discrimination between PGY-4s and PGY-5s. Generalizability validity evidence is provided by test-retest reliability. Further refinement is needed for the A-OSATS tool to be used for high-stakes entrustment decisions in resident-performed robotic ileocolic anastomoses.

Minimally invasive swine spine surgery training: technical aspects, benefits, and anatomical limitations

Objective

To describe the technical specificities and feasibility of simulation of minimally invasive spine surgery in live pigs, as well as similarities and differences in comparison to surgery in humans.

Methods

A total of 22 Large White class swine models, weighing between 60 and 80kg, were submitted to surgical simulations, performed during theoretical-practical courses for training surgical techniques (microsurgical and endoscopic lumbar decompression; percutaneous pedicular instrumentation; lateral access to the thoracic spine, and anterior and retroperitoneal to the lumbar spine, and management of complications) by 86 spine surgeons. For each surgical technique, porcine anatomy (similarities and differences in relation to human anatomy), access route, and dimensions of the instruments and implants used were evaluated. Thus, the authors describe the feasibility of each operative simulation, as well as suggestions to optimize training. Study results are descriptive, with figures and drawings.

Results

Neural decompression surgeries (microsurgeries and endoscopic) and pedicular instrumentation presented higher similarities to surgery on humans. On the other hand, intradiscal procedures had limitations due to the narrow disc space in swines. We were able to simulate situations of surgical trauma in surgical complication scenarios, such as cerebrospinal fluid fistulas and excessive bleeding, with comparable realism to surgery on humans.

Conclusion

A porcine model for simulation of minimally invasive spinal surgical techniques had similarities with surgery on humans, and is therefore feasible for surgeon training.