A Video-Based Procedure-Specific Competency Assessment Tool for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy.

Importance: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a complex procedure with substantial learning curves. In other complex minimally invasive procedures, suboptimal surgical performance has convincingly been associated with less favorable patient outcomes as assessed by peer review of the surgical procedure. Objective: To develop and validate a procedure-specific competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIE. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this international quality improvement study, a procedure-specific MIE-CAT was developed and validated. The MIE-CAT contains 8 procedural phases, and 4 quality components per phase are scored with a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4. For evaluation of the MIE-CAT, intraoperative MIE videos performed by a single surgical team in the Esophageal Center East Netherlands were peer reviewed by 18 independent international MIE experts (with more than 120 MIEs performed). Each video was assessed by 2 or 3 blinded experts to evaluate feasibility, content validity, reliability, and construct validity. MIE-CAT version 2 was composed with refined content aimed at improving interrater reliability. A total of 32 full-length MIE videos from patients who underwent MIE between 2011 and 2020 were analyzed. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to January 2023. Exposure: Performance assessment of transthoracic MIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Feasibility, content validity, interrater and intrarater reliability, and construct validity, including correlations with both experience of the surgical team and clinical parameters, of the developed MIE-CAT. Results: Experts found the MIE-CAT easy to understand and easy to use to grade surgical performance. The MIE-CAT demonstrated good intrarater reliability (range of intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs], 0.807 [95% CI, 0.656 to 0.892] for quality component score to 0.898 [95% CI, 0.846 to 0.932] for phase score). Interrater reliability was moderate (range of ICCs, 0.536 [95% CI, -0.220 to 0.994] for total MIE-CAT score to 0.705 [95% CI, 0.473 to 0.846] for quality component score), and most discrepancies originated in the lymphadenectomy phases. Hypothesis testing for construct validity showed more than 75% of hypotheses correct: MIE-CAT performance scores correlated with experience of the surgical team (r = 0.288 to 0.622), blood loss (r = -0.034 to -0.545), operative time (r = -0.309 to -0.611), intraoperative complications (r = -0.052 to -0.319), and severe postoperative complications (r = -0.207 to -0.395). MIE-CAT version 2 increased usability. Interrater reliability improved but remained moderate (range of ICCs, 0.666 to 0.743), and most discrepancies between raters remained in the lymphadenectomy phases. Conclusions and Relevance: The MIE-CAT was developed and its feasibility, content validity, reliability, and construct validity were demonstrated. By providing insight into surgical performance of MIE, the MIE-CAT might be used for clinical, training, and research purposes.

Crowd-sourced and expert video assessment in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Video-based assessment by experts may structurally measure surgical performance using procedure-specific competency assessment tools (CATs). A CAT for minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE-CAT) was developed and validated previously. However, surgeon's time is scarce and video assessment is time-consuming and labor intensive. This study investigated non-procedure-specific assessment of MIE video clips by MIE experts and crowdsourcing, collective surgical performance evaluation by anonymous and untrained laypeople, to assist procedure-specific expert review. METHODS: Two surgical performance scoring frameworks were used to assess eight MIE videos. First, global performance was assessed with the non-procedure-specific Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) of 64 procedural phase-based video clips < 10 min. Each clip was assessed by two MIE experts and > 30 crowd workers. Second, the same experts assessed procedure-specific performance with the MIE-CAT of the corresponding full-length video. Reliability and convergent validity of GOALS for MIE were investigated using hypothesis testing with correlations (experience, blood loss, operative time, and MIE-CAT). RESULTS: Less than 75% of hypothesized correlations between GOALS scores and experience of the surgical team (r < 0.3), blood loss (r = - 0.82 to 0.02), operative time (r = - 0.42 to 0.07), and the MIE-CAT scores (r = - 0.04 to 0.76) were met for both crowd workers and experts. Interestingly, experts' GOALS and MIE-CAT scores correlated strongly (r = 0.40 to 0.79), while crowd workers' GOALS and experts' MIE-CAT scores correlations were weak (r = - 0.04 to 0.49). Expert and crowd worker GOALS scores correlated poorly (ICC ≤ 0.42). CONCLUSION: GOALS assessments by crowd workers lacked convergent validity and showed poor reliability. It is likely that MIE is technically too difficult to assess for laypeople. Convergent validity of GOALS assessments by experts could also not be established. GOALS might not be comprehensive enough to assess detailed MIE performance. However, expert's GOALS and MIE-CAT scores strongly correlated indicating video clip (instead of full-length video) assessments could be useful to shorten assessment time.