Tools for measuring technical skills during gynaecologic surgery: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Standardised assessment is key to structured surgical training. Currently, there is no consensus on which surgical assessment tool to use in live gynaecologic surgery. The purpose of this review is to identify assessment tools measuring technical skills in gynaecologic surgery and evaluate the measurement characteristics of each tool.

METHOD

We utilized the scoping review methodology and searched PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Inclusion criteria were studies that analysed assessment tools in live gynaecologic surgery. Kane's validity argument was applied to evaluate the assessment tools in the included studies.

RESULTS

Eight studies out of the 544 identified fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The assessment tools were categorised as global rating scales, global and procedure rating scales combined, procedure-specific rating scales or as a non-procedure-specific error assessment tool.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review presents the current different tools for observational assessment of technical skills in intraoperative, gynaecologic surgery. This scoping review can serve as a guide for surgical educators who want to apply a scale or a specific tool in surgical assessment.

Arterial waveform-analysis is of limited value in daily clinical practice in the intensive care unit

INTRODUCTION

It is difficult to identify the patients who will respond to fluid therapy, but the arterial waveform-derived variables have reasonably predictive values for fluid responsiveness. However, the patient must fulfil a number of prerequisites for these variables to be valid. We assessed the proportion of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with shock who at the time of resuscitation fulfilled the prerequisites for using the arterial waveform-derived variables.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study performed at six ICUs. The study included consecutive adult patients with shock (20 patients per ICU) who received fluid resuscitation on the first day of shock. The fulfilment or not of the prerequisites (sedation, sinus rhythm and controlled ventilation with tidal volumes > 7 ml/kg) was registered at the time of the first fluid resuscitation episode and at fluid resuscitation episodes during the following days.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range: 56-76 years) were included. At the time of the first fluid resuscitation, 82% (95% confidence interval (CI): 74-87) of the patients had sinus rhythm, 77% (95% CI: 69-84) were sedated, 55% (95% CI: 46-65) were on controlled ventilation and 50% (95% CI: 39-61) received tidal volumes of more than 7 ml/kg. Only 23% (95% CI: 14-33) of the patients fulfilled all four prerequisites.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than a quarter of the ICU patients with shock fulfilled all the prerequisites for the use of arterial waveform-derived variables to predict fluid responsiveness. Thus, these variables may be of limited use during resuscitation in the ICU.

Variable assessment of the circulation in intensive care unit patients with shock

INTRODUCTION

Circulatory failure is frequent in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is associated with a high mortality and morbidity. There is no current consensus on which parameters best evaluate circulatory failure, and clinical practice regarding haemodynamic assessment is unknown. This study describes current clinical practice regarding circulatory assessment in ICU patients with shock.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a prospective, observational cohort study conducted in a university hospital ICU over a four-month period. Doctors working in the ICU were divided into two groups: trainees and specialists. They registered their circulatory assessments of consecutive patients with shock. The parameters included type of shock, kind of parameters used (markers of hypoperfusion, hypovolaemia and flow), which parameter was considered to be most important and the clinical action taken.

RESULTS

A total of 23 doctors performed 210 patient assessments, which was equivalent to a median of eight (interquartile range: 5-14) per doctor. Trainees used six (5-8) parameters compared with five (3-6) parameters per assessment among specialists (p < 0.01). Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was the most frequently assessed parameter (n = 178) and both specialist (in 23% of assessments) and trainees (30%) considered MAP to be the most important parameter. Hypoperfusion markers were assessed in 99% of the cases, and a marker of hypovolaemia was also assessed in 83% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78-88) of these cases. Fluid was the most frequent clinical action taken, and was given after 150 assessments, but a marker of hypovolaemia was not assessed in 13% (95% CI 9-20) of these situations. Trainees assessed heart rate (76% versus 54%; p < 0.01), diastolic (45% versus 28%, p < 0.01) and systolic blood pressure (70% versus 46%; p < 0.01) and central venous oxygen saturation (63% versus 35%; p < 0.01) more frequently than specialists.

CONCLUSION

MAP was the most frequently used parameter and fluid the most frequently given treatment by ICU doctors assessing patients with shock. The study indicates that assessment of hypoperfusion leads to the use of a marker of hypovolaemia, but in some cases fluid was given without this assessment. The haemodynamic assessment differed between ICU specialists and trainees.

FUNDING

Righospitalet's Research Council supported the study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

not relevant.

Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin in patients with sepsis: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of fluid therapy with hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin on mortality, kidney injury, bleeding, and serious adverse events in patients with sepsis.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Biosis Previews, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Current Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Centerwatch to September 2012; hand search of reference lists and other systematic reviews; contact with authors and relevant pharmaceutical companies.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible trials were randomised clinical trials comparing hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 with either crystalloid or human albumin in patients with sepsis. Published and unpublished trials were included irrespective of language and predefined outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data on methods, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias. Risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models.

RESULTS

Nine trials that randomised 3456 patients with sepsis were included. Overall, hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin did not affect the relative risk of death (1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.22, 3414 patients, eight trials), but in the predefined analysis of trials with low risk of bias the relative risk of death was 1.11 (1.00 to 1.23, trial sequential analysis (TSA) adjusted 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.29, 3016 patients, four trials). In the hydroxyethyl starch group, renal replacement therapy was used more (1.36, 1.08 to 1.72, TSA adjusted 1.03 to 1.80, 1311 patients, five trials), and the relative risk of acute kidney injury was 1.18 (0.99 to 1.40, TSA adjusted 0.90 to 1.54, 994 patients, four trials). More patients in the hydroxyethyl starch group were transfused with red blood cells (1.29, 1.13 to 1.48, TSA adjusted 1.10 to 1.51, 973 patients, three trials), and more patients had serious adverse events (1.30, 1.02 to 1.67, TSA adjusted 0.93 to 1.83, 1069 patients, four trials). The transfused volume of red blood cells did not differ between the groups (mean difference 65 mL, 95% confidence interval -20 to 149 mL, three trials).

CONCLUSION

In conventional meta-analyses including recent trial data, hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 versus crystalloid or albumin increased the use of renal replacement therapy and transfusion with red blood cells, and resulted in more serious adverse events in patients with sepsis. It seems unlikely that hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.38-0.45 provides overall clinical benefit for patients with sepsis.