Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastamosis: a comparison of short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There is wide variation among laparoscopic colon resection techniques, including the approach for mobilization and the extent of intracorporal vessel ligation, bowel division or anastamosis. We compared the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRHC) with intracorporeal (IA) versus extracorporeal (EA) anastamosis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all elective laparoscopic right hemicolectomies performed at St. Joseph's Hospital between January 2008 and September 2009 and compared the demographic, pathologic, operative and outcome data. RESULTS: Fifty LRHCs were completed during the study period: 21 IA and 29 EA. The groups were similar in age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, previous laparotomy and preoperative invasive pathology. There was no difference between IA and EA in mean duration of surgery (170 v. 181 min, p = 0.78), estimated blood loss (14 v. 42 mL, p = 0.15), perioperative blood transfusions (5% v. 14%, p = 0.29), in-hospital morbidity (33% v. 41%, p = 0.56), out-of-hospital morbidity (19% v. 31% p = 0.34), emergency department visits (10% v. 17%, p = 0.16) or 30-day readmissions (5% v. 7%, p = 0.75). There was 1 anastamotic leak in each group and no perioperative deaths. Median length of stay was significantly shorter for IA (4 v. 5 d, p = 0.05). There were 6 extraction site hernias with EA and none with IA (p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with IA has the advantage of a less hernia-prone Pfannenstiel extraction site, faster recovery and shorter stay in hospital EA.

CONTEXTE: Il existe énormément de variations entre les techniques d'exérèse du côlon par laparascopie, y compris en ce qui concerne l'approche adoptée pour la mobilisation et l'étendue de la ligature vasculaire intracorporelle, la séparation du côlon ou l'anastomose. Nous avons comparé les résultats à court terme de l'hémicolectomie droite laparascopique (HDL) avec anastomose intracorporelle (AI) à ceux de l'HDL avec anastomose extracorporelle (AE). MÉTHODES: Nous avons effectué une analyse rétrospective de toutes les hémicolectomies droites laparascopiques non urgentes pratiquées à l'hôpital St. Joseph entre janvier 2008 et septembre 2009, et comparé les données démographiques, pathologiques et opératoires et les données sur les résultats. RÉSULTATS: Cinquante HDL ont été pratiquées au cours de l'étude : 21 avec AI et 29 avec AE. Les groupes de patients étaient comparables pour ce qui était de l'âge, du sexe, de l'indice de masse corporelle, du score de l'American Society of Anesthesiologists, des antécédents de laparatomie et de la pathologie invasive préopératoire. Aucune différence n'a été observée entre l'AI et l'AE pour ce qui est de la durée moyenne de l'intervention chirurgicale (170 c. 181 min, p = 0,78), de la perte de sang estimée (14 c. 42 mL, p = 0,15), des transfusions sanguines péri-opératoires (5 % c. 14 %, p = 0,29), de la morbidité hospitalière (33 % c. à 41 %, p = 0,56), de la morbidité extra-hospitalière (19 % c. 31 %, p = 0,34), des admissions à l'urgence (10 % c. 17 %, p = 0,16) ou des réadmissions à l'hôpital dans les 30 jours (5 % c. 7 %, p = 0,75). On a signalé 1 fuite anastomique dans chaque groupe, mais aucun décès péri-opératoire. La durée médiane de l'hospitalisation était significativement plus courte pour les AI (4 c. 5 j, p = 0,05). Il y a eu 6 hernies au point d'extraction pour les AE, mais aucune pour les AI (p = 0,026). CONCLUSION: L'hémicolectomie droite laparascopique avec AI a l'avantage de réduire le risque d'hernie au point d'extraction après incision de Pfannenstiel, d'accélérer le rétablissement de réduire la durée de l'hospitalisation.

A cost comparison of laparoscopic and open colon surgery in a publicly funded academic institution.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the total hospital cost of laparoscopic (lap) and open colon surgery at a publicly funded academic institution. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open colon surgery for all indications at the University Health Network, Toronto, Canada, from April 2004 to March 2009 were included. Patient demographic, operative, and outcome data were reviewed retrospectively. Hospital costs were determined from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, adjusted for inflation, and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Linear regression was used to analyze the relationship between length of stay and total hospital cost. RESULTS: There were 391 elective colon resections (223 lap/168 open, 15.4 % conversion). There was no difference in median age, gender, or Charlson score. Body mass index was slightly higher for laparoscopic surgery (27.5/25.9 lap/open; p = 0.008), while the American Society of Anesthesiologists score was slightly higher for open surgery. Median operative time was greater for laparoscopic surgery (224/196 min, lap/open; p = 0.001). There was no difference in complication rates (21.6/22.5 % lap/open; p = 0.900), reoperations (5.8/6.5 % lap/open; p = 0.833) or 30-day readmissions (7.6/12.5 % lap/open; p = 0.122). Number of emergency room visits was greater with open surgery (12.6/20.8 % lap/open; p = 0.037). Operative cost was higher for laparoscopic surgery ($4,171.37/3,489.29 lap/open; p = 0.001), while total hospital cost was significantly reduced ($9,600.22/12,721.41 lap/open; p = 0.001). Median length of stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery (5/7 days lap/open; p = 0.000), and this correlated directly with hospital cost. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic colon surgery is associated with increased operative costs but significantly lower total hospital costs. The cost savings is related, in part, to reduced length of stay with laparoscopic surgery.

Construct validity of individual and summary performance metrics associated with a computer-based laparoscopic simulator.

BACKGROUND: Computer-based surgical simulators capture a multitude of metrics based on different aspects of performance, such as speed, accuracy, and movement efficiency. However, without rigorous assessment, it may be unclear whether all, some, or none of these metrics actually reflect technical skill, which can compromise educational efforts on these simulators. We assessed the construct validity of individual performance metrics on the LapVR simulator (Immersion Medical, San Jose, CA, USA) and used these data to create task-specific summary metrics. METHODS: Medical students with no prior laparoscopic experience (novices, N = 12), junior surgical residents with some laparoscopic experience (intermediates, N = 12), and experienced surgeons (experts, N = 11) all completed three repetitions of four LapVR simulator tasks. The tasks included three basic skills (peg transfer, cutting, clipping) and one procedural skill (adhesiolysis). RESULTS: We selected 36 individual metrics on the four tasks that assessed six different aspects of performance, including speed, motion path length, respect for tissue, accuracy, task-specific errors, and successful task completion. Four of seven individual metrics assessed for peg transfer, six of ten metrics for cutting, four of nine metrics for clipping, and three of ten metrics for adhesiolysis discriminated between experience levels. Time and motion path length were significant on all four tasks. We used the validated individual metrics to create summary equations for each task, which successfully distinguished between the different experience levels. CONCLUSION: Educators should maintain some skepticism when reviewing the plethora of metrics captured by computer-based simulators, as some but not all are valid. We showed the construct validity of a limited number of individual metrics and developed summary metrics for the LapVR. The summary metrics provide a succinct way of assessing skill with a single metric for each task, but require further validation.

Advancement in the quality of operative documentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of synoptic versus narrative operative reporting.

BACKGROUND: The operative report is vital for patients and central to surgical quality assessment. Narrative operative reports are often poor quality. Synoptic reporting can improve documentation. The objective was to identify and appraise studies comparing synoptic and narrative operative reporting. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of the literature was performed. The primary outcome was completion of critical elements for an operative report. Additional secondary outcomes were measured. Meta-analysis was performed where possible. Quality analysis was performed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: 1471 citations were identified; 16 studies included. Mean NOS was 7.09 out of 9 (+/-- SD 1.73). Meta-analysis demonstrated that synoptic reporting was significantly more complete (SMD 1.70, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.26; I2 98%). Completion time was shorter with synoptic reporting (mean difference -0.86, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.55). Secondary outcomes favoured synoptic reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Synoptic reporting platforms outperform narrative reporting and should be incorporated into surgical practice.

Establishing the concurrent validity of general and technique-specific skills assessments in surgical education.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery entails a unique skill set, but it is unclear whether it requires a specific assessment form or whether more general assessment tools can be applied. The purpose of this study was to assess the concurrent validity of 2 previously validated assessment scales. One scale designed specifically to assess laparoscopic skills and the other to assess more general surgical skills. METHODS: Postgraduate year 1-6 general surgery and urology residents (n = 33) performed a live laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Three surgeon raters scored their performance using previously validated objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) and global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills rating scales. RESULTS: Pearson's correlation coefficient between global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills and OSATS rating scales was .975 (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The near total correlation between the 2 scales questions the need for separate laparoscopic assessment tools, highlighting the real strengths of OSATS, the use of which allows for more consistent nomenclature and standardized skills assessment across surgical platforms.

Does laparoscopic simulation predict intraoperative performance? A comparison between the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery and LapVR evaluation metrics.

BACKGROUND: Considerable resources have been invested in low- and high-fidelity simulators in surgical training. To our knowledge, no investigation has compared the 2 head to head for operative assessment purposes. The purpose of this study was to assess the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) low-fidelity video trainer and LapVR (high-fidelity virtual-reality simulator) for (1) construct and (2) predictive validity using a human cholecystectomy model. METHODS: Twenty-six participants performed tasks from the FLS program and the LapVR simulator as well as a human laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Performance was evaluated using FLS and LapVR metrics and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills previously validated rating scale. RESULTS: Construct and predictive validity were strongly demonstrated for FLS tasks but only incompletely for LapVR. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts should be focused on using the well-validated lower-cost FLS video trainer for assessment of laparoscopic skills. The high-cost LapVR remains experimental in resource-constrained training programs.

The Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery and LapVR evaluation metrics may not correlate with operative performance in a novice cohort.

BACKGROUND: Considerable resources have been invested in both low- and high-fidelity simulators in surgical training. The purpose of this study was to investigate if the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS, low-fidelity box trainer) and LapVR (high-fidelity virtual reality) training systems correlate with operative performance on the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) global rating scale using a porcine cholecystectomy model in a novice surgical group with minimal laparoscopic experience. METHODS: Fourteen postgraduate year 1 surgical residents with minimal laparoscopic experience performed tasks from the FLS program and the LapVR simulator as well as a live porcine laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Performance was evaluated using standardized FLS metrics, automatic computer evaluations, and a validated global rating scale. RESULTS: Overall, FLS score did not show an association with GOALS global rating scale score on the porcine cholecystectomy. None of the five LapVR task scores were significantly associated with GOALS score on the porcine cholecystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the low-fidelity box trainer or the high-fidelity virtual simulator demonstrated significant correlation with GOALS operative scores. These findings offer caution against the use of these modalities for brief assessments of novice surgical trainees, especially for predictive or selection purposes.

The effect of blocked versus random task practice schedules on the acquisition and retention of surgical skills.

BACKGROUND: When learning multiple tasks, blocked or random training schedules may be used. We assessed the effects of blocked and random schedules on the acquisition and retention of laparoscopic skills. METHODS: Thirty-six laparoscopic novices were randomized to practice laparoscopic tasks using blocked, random, or no additional training. Participants performed immediate post-tests, followed by retention tests 6 weeks later. Outcomes included previously validated Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) and hand-motion efficiency scores. RESULTS: Both blocked and random groups had significantly higher FLS and hand-motion efficiency scores over baseline on post-tests for each task (P < .05) and higher overall FLS scores than controls on retention tests (P < .01). No difference was seen between the blocked and random groups in the amount of skill acquired or skill retained. CONCLUSIONS: Both blocked and random training schedules can be considered as valid training options to allow programs and learners to tailor training to their individual needs.