Assessment of Minimally Invasive Suturing Skills: Is Instrument Tracking an Accurate Prediction?

Introduction: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) suturing demands advanced surgical skills. Therefore, it is important these skills are adequately trained and assessed. Assessment and feedback can consist of judgments and scores of expert observers or objective parameters using instrument tracking. The aim of this study was to determine to what extent objective parameters correspond to expert assessment. Methods: Participants performed an intracorporeal suturing task on the EoSim simulator repeatedly (maximum 20 repetitions) during training. The best discriminating parameters, which previously shown construct validation, were combined into a composite score, using regression analysis. All videos were blinded and assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the validated laparoscopic suturing competency assessment tool (LS-CAT). These scores were compared with the composite score. Results: A 100 videos of 16 trainees, during separate points on their learning curve, and 8 experts were used. The parameters "time" and "distance" were statistically significantly correlated with all LS-CAT domains. The composite score (calculated from "time" and "distance") showed improvement between the first and the last knot (57% versus 94%, P < .001). Also the LS-CAT score improved (28 versus 17, P < .001). However, the correlation of the composite score with the LS-CAT score was weak (R: 0.351), with an accuracy of 55/100 when pooling the outcomes based on inadequate, adequate, or good performance. Conclusion: Instrument tracking parameters (using Surgtrac) could give an indication of the skill level, however, it missed important elements, essential for reliable assessment. Therefore, expert assessment remains superior to determine the skill level in MIS suturing skills.

Take-Home Laparoscopy Simulators in Pediatric Surgery: Is More Expensive Better?

Background: To increase complex minimally invasive skills (MIS), frequent training outside the clinical setting is of uttermost importance. This study compares two low-cost pediatric MIS simulators, which can easily be used preclinically. Materials and Methods: The LaparoscopyBoxx is a portable simulator without a tracking system, with costs ranging from €90 to €315. The EoSim simulator has a built-in camera and tracking system and costs range from €780 to €1800. During several pediatric surgical conferences and workshops (January 2017-December 2018), participants were asked to use both simulators. Afterward, they completed a questionnaire regarding their opinion on realism and didactic value, scored on a five-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 50 participants (24 experts and 25 target group, one unknown) evaluated one or both simulators. Both simulators scored well on the questionnaire. The LaparoscopyBoxx scored significantly better regarding the "on screen representation of the instrument actions" (mean 4.2 versus 3.5, P = .001), "training tool for pediatric surgery" (mean 4.4 versus 3.9, P = .005), and "appealing take-home simulator" (mean 4.6 versus 4.0, P = .002). Conclusion: The simulators tested in this study were both regarded an appealing take-home simulator. The LaparoscopyBoxx scored significantly better than the EoSim, even though this is a low budget simulator without tracking capabilities.

Validation of low-cost models for minimal invasive surgery training of congenital diaphragmatic hernia and esophageal atresia.

BACKGROUND: Minimal invasive surgery (MIS) is increasingly used for the correction of congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) and esophageal atresia (EA). It is important to master these complex procedures, preferably preclinically, to avoid complications. The aim of this study was to validate recently developed models to train these MIS procedures preclinically. METHODS: Two low cost, reproducible models (one for CDH and one for EA) were validated during several pediatric surgical conferences and training sessions (January 2017-December 2018), used in either the LaparoscopyBoxx or EoSim simulator. Participants used one or both models and completed a questionnaire regarding their opinion on realism (face validity) and didactic value (content validity), rated on a five-point-Likert scale. RESULTS: Of all 60 participants enrolled, 44 evaluated the EA model. All items were evaluated as significantly better than neutral, with means ranging from 3.7 to 4.1 (p < 0.001). The CDH model was evaluated by 48 participants. All items scored significantly better than neutral (means 3.5-3.9, p < 0.001), with exception of the haptics of the simulated diaphragm (mean 3.3, p = 0.054). Both models were considered a potent training tool (means 3.9). CONCLUSION: These readily available and low budget models are considered a valid and potent training tool by both experts and target group participants. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Assessment of validity evidence for the RobotiX robot assisted surgery simulator on advanced suturing tasks.

BACKGROUND: Robot assisted surgery has expanded considerably in the past years. Compared to conventional open or laparoscopic surgery, virtual reality (VR) training is an essential component in learning robot assisted surgery. However, for tasks to be implemented in a curriculum, the levels of validity should be studied for proficiency-based training. Therefore, this study was aimed to assess the validity evidence of advanced suturing tasks on a robot assisted VR simulator. METHOD: Participants were voluntary recruited and divided in the robotic experienced, laparoscopic experienced or novice group, based on self-reported surgical experience. Subsequently, a questionnaire on a five-point Likert scale was completed to assess the content validity. Three component tasks of complex suturing were performed on the RobotiX simulator (Task1: tilted plane needle transfer, Task: 2 intracorporal suturing, Task 3: anastomosis needle transfer). Accordingly, the outcome of the parameters was used to assess construct validity between robotic experienced and novice participants. Composite scores (0-100) were calculated from the construct parameters and corresponding pass/fail scores with false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) percentages. RESULTS: Fifteen robotic experienced, 26 laparoscopic experienced and 29 novices were recruited. Overall content validity outcomes were scored positively on the realism (mean 3.7), didactic value (mean 4.0) and usability (mean 4.2). Robotic experienced participants significantly outperformed novices and laparoscopic experienced participants on multiple parameters on all three tasks of complex suturing. Parameters showing construct validity mainly consisted of movement parameters, needle precision and task completion time. Calculated composite pass/fail scores between robotic experienced and novice participants resulted for Task 1 in 73/100 (FP 21%, FN 5%), Task 2 in 85/100 (FP 28%, FN 4%) and Task 3 in 64/100 (FP 49%, FN 22%). CONCLUSION: This study assessed the validity evidence on multiple levels of the three studied tasks. The participants score the RobotiX good on the content validity level. The composite pass/fail scores of Tasks 1 and 2 allow for proficiency-based training and could be implemented in a robot assisted surgery training curriculum.

Competency assessment tool for laparoscopic suturing: development and reliability evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic suturing can be technically challenging and requires extensive training to achieve competency. To date no specific and objective assessment method for laparoscopic suturing and knot tying is available that can guide training and monitor performance in these complex surgical skills. In this study we aimed to develop a laparoscopic suturing competency assessment tool (LS-CAT) and assess its inter-observer reliability. METHODS: We developed a bespoke CAT tool for laparoscopic suturing through a structured, mixed methodology approach, overseen by a steering committee with experience in developing surgical assessment tools. A wide Delphi consultation with over twelve experts in laparoscopic surgery guided the development stages of the tool. Following, subjects with different levels of laparoscopic expertise were included to evaluate this tool, using a simulated laparoscopic suturing task which involved placing of two surgical knots. A research assistant video recorded and anonymised each performance. Two blinded expert surgeons assessed the anonymised videos using the developed LS-CAT. The LS-CAT scores of the two experts were compared to assess the inter-observer reliability. Lastly, we compared the subjects' LS-CAT performance scores at the beginning and end of their learning curve. RESULTS: This study evaluated a novel LS-CAT performance tool, comprising of four tasks. Thirty-six complete videos were analysed and evaluated with the LS-CAT, of which the scores demonstrated excellent inter-observer reliability. Cohen's Kappa analysis revealed good to excellent levels of agreement for almost all tasks of both instrument handling and tissue handling (0.87; 0.77; 0.75; 0.86; 0.85, all with p < 0.001). Subjects performed significantly better at the end of their learning curve compared to their first attempt for all LS-CAT items (all with p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We developed the LS-CAT, which is a laparoscopic suturing grading matrix, with excellent inter-rater reliability and to discriminate between experience levels. This LS-CAT has a potential for wider use to objectively assess laparoscopic suturing skills.

A cost-effectiveness modeling study of robot-assisted (RARC) versus open radical cystectomy (ORC) for bladder cancer to inform future research.

BACKGROUND: Open radical cystectomy (ORC) is regarded the standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, but robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasingly used in practice. However, it is unclear whether RARC provides value for money. OBJECTIVE: To identify the main evidence gaps and main drivers of cost-effectiveness, comparing RARC to ORC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A decision analytical model was developed to study the 30d and 90d postoperative complications with RARC versus ORC and their related cost in bladder cancer patients. Input data were derived from systematic literature searches, meta-analyses, internal databases and expert opinion. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cost per saved complication (in Clavien-Dindo grading) was determined. Deterministic sensitivity analyses was performed to search for threshold values for RARC to become cost saving. Uncertainty was addressed using probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The expected 30d and 90d risk for a minor complication was lower for RARC than ORC (37% vs. 45% and 32% vs. 36%). The expected 30d and 90d risk of RARC versus ORC for a major complication was 18% vs. 23% and 16% vs. 25%. The 30d and 90d extra costs needed to prevent one major complication were €62,582 and €37,007, respectively. Data on the impact of complications on quality of life were lacking. Three scenarios resulted in cost savings for RARC: operating time (threshold: ≤175min), length of stay (≤4d), and RARC equipment (≤€281). CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that it is unlikely that RARC will become less expensive than ORC. However, RARC might result in fewer complications. To determine value for money, research is needed into the consequences of these complications in terms of quality of life. PATIENT SUMMARY: Economic modeling showed that RARC might result in fewer complications, but is more expensive than ORC. Future research should focus on the impact on quality of life.