An international Delphi consensus for surgical quality assessment of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis in minimally invasive total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) is a mainstay for curative treatment of patients with gastric cancer. To define and standardize optimal surgical techniques and further improve clinical outcomes through the enhanced MITG surgical quality, there must be consensus on the key technical steps of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis creation, which is currently lacking. This study aimed to determine an expert consensus from an international panel regarding the technical aspects of the performance of MITG for oncological indications using the Delphi method. METHODS: A 100-point scoping survey was created based on the deconstruction of MITG into its key technical steps through local and international expert opinion and literature evidence. An international expert panel comprising upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in multiple rounds of a Delphi consensus. The panelists voted on the issues concerning importance, difficulty, or agreement using an online questionnaire. A priori consensus standard was set at > 80% for agreement to a statement. Internal consistency and reliability were evaluated using Cronbach's α. RESULTS: Thirty expert upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in three online Delphi rounds, generating a final consensus of 41 statements regarding MITG for gastric cancer. The consensus was gained from 22, 12, and 7 questions from Delphi rounds 1, 2, and 3, which were rephrased into the 41 statetments respectively. For lymphadenectomy and aspects of anastomosis creation, Cronbach's α for round 1 was 0.896 and 0.886, and for round 2 was 0.848 and 0.779, regarding difficulty or importance. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi consensus defined 41 steps as crucial for performing a high-quality MITG for oncological indications based on the standards of an international panel. The results of this consensus provide a platform for creating and validating surgical quality assessment tools designed to improve clinical outcomes and standardize surgical quality in MITG.

Force-based assessment of tissue handling skills in simulation training for robot-assisted surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Although robotic-assisted surgery is increasingly performed, objective assessment of technical skills is lacking. The aim of this study is to provide validity evidence for objective assessment of technical skills for robotic-assisted surgery. METHODS: An international multicenter study was conducted with participants from the academic hospitals Heidelberg University Hospital (Germany, Heidelberg) and the Amsterdam University Medical Centers (The Netherlands, Amsterdam). Trainees with distinctly different levels of robotic surgery experience were divided into three groups (novice, intermediate, expert) and enrolled in a training curriculum. Each trainee performed six trials of a standardized suturing task using the da Vinci Surgical System. Using the ForceSense system, five force-based parameters were analyzed, for objective assessment of tissue handling skills. Mann-Whitney U test and linear regression were used to analyze performance differences and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to analyze skills progression. RESULTS: A total of 360 trials, performed by 60 participants, were analyzed. Significant differences between the novices, intermediates and experts were observed regarding the total completion time (41 s vs 29 s vs 22 s p = 0.003), mean non zero force (29 N vs 33 N vs 19 N p = 0.032), maximum impulse (40 Ns vs 31 Ns vs 20 Ns p = 0.001) and force volume (38 N3 vs 32 N3 vs 22 N3 p = 0.018). Furthermore, the experts showed better results in mean non-zero force (22 N vs 13 N p = 0.015), maximum impulse (24 Ns vs 17 Ns p = 0.043) and force volume (25 N3 vs 16 N3 p = 0.025) compared to the intermediates (p ≤ 0.05). Lastly, learning curve improvement was observed for the total task completion time, mean non-zero force, maximum impulse and force volume (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: Construct validity for force-based assessment of tissue handling skills in robot-assisted surgery is established. It is advised to incorporate objective assessment and feedback in robot-assisted surgery training programs to determine technical proficiency and, potentially, to prevent tissue trauma.

Development and validity evidence of an objective structured assessment of technical skills score for minimally invasive linear-stapled, hand-sewn intestinal anastomoses: the A-OSATS score.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to develop a reliable objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) score for linear-stapled, hand-sewn closure of enterotomy intestinal anastomoses (A-OSATS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Delphi methodology was used to create a traditional and weighted A-OSATS score highlighting the more important steps for patient outcomes according to an international expert consensus. Minimally invasive novices, intermediates, and experts were asked to perform a minimally invasive linear-stapled intestinal anastomosis with hand-sewn closure of the enterotomy in a live animal model either laparoscopically or robot-assisted. Video recordings were scored by two blinded raters assessing intrarater and interrater reliability and discriminative abilities between novices (n = 8), intermediates (n = 24), and experts (n = 8). RESULTS: The Delphi process included 18 international experts and was successfully completed after 4 rounds. A total of 4 relevant main steps as well as 15 substeps were identified and a definition of each substep was provided. A maximum of 75 points could be reached in the unweighted A-OSATS score and 170 points in the weighted A-OSATS score respectively. A total of 41 anastomoses were evaluated. Excellent intrarater (r = 0.807-0.988, p < 0.001) and interrater (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.923-0.924, p < 0.001) reliability was demonstrated. Both versions of the A-OSATS correlated well with the general OSATS and discriminated between novices, intermediates, and experts defined by their OSATS global rating scale. CONCLUSION: With the weighted and unweighted A-OSATS score, we propose a new reliable standard to assess the creation of minimally invasive linear-stapled, hand-sewn anastomoses based on an international expert consensus. Validity evidence in live animal models is provided in this study. Future research should focus on assessing whether the weighted A-OSATS exceeds the predictive capabilities of patient outcomes of the unweighted A-OSATS and provide further validity evidence on using the score on different anastomotic techniques in humans.

EAES Recommendations for Recovery Plan in Minimally Invasive Surgery Amid COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic presented an unexpected challenge for the surgical community in general and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) specialists in particular. This document aims to summarize recent evidence and experts' opinion and formulate recommendations to guide the surgical community on how to best organize the recovery plan for surgical activity across different sub-specialities after the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Recommendations were developed through a Delphi process for establishment of expert consensus. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different surgical specialities following the COVID-19 crisis. Sixty-five experts from 24 countries, representing the entire EAES board, were invited. Fifty clinicians and six engineers accepted the invitation and drafted statements based on specific key questions. Anonymous voting on the statements was performed until consensus was achieved, defined by at least 70% agreement. RESULTS: A total of 92 consensus statements were formulated with regard to safe resumption of surgery across eight domains, addressing general surgery, upper GI, lower GI, bariatrics, endocrine, HPB, abdominal wall and technology/research. The statements addressed elective and emergency services across all subspecialties with specific attention to the role of MIS during the recovery plan. Eighty-four of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting (91.3%) and another 8 during the following round after substantial modification, resulting in a 100% consensus. CONCLUSION: The recommendations formulated by the EAES board establish a framework for resumption of surgery following COVID-19 pandemic with particular focus on the role of MIS across surgical specialities. The statements have the potential for wide application in the clinical setting, education activities and research work across different healthcare systems.

Surgical challenges and research priorities in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic: EAES membership survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems and general surgeons are being challenged by the current pandemic. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) aimed to evaluate surgeons' experiences and perspectives, to identify gaps in knowledge, to record shortcomings in resources and to register research priorities. METHODS: An ad hoc web-based survey of EAES members and affiliates was developed by the EAES Research Committee. The questionnaire consisted of 69 items divided into the following sections: (Ι) demographics, (II) institutional burdens and management strategies, and (III) analysis of resource, knowledge, and evidence gaps. Descriptive statistics were summarized as frequencies, medians, ranges,, and interquartile ranges, as appropriate. RESULTS: The survey took place between March 25th and April 16th with a total of 550 surgeons from 79 countries. Eighty-one percent had to postpone elective cases or suspend their practice and 35% assumed roles not related to their primary expertise. One-fourth of respondents reported having encountered abdominal pathologies in COVID-19-positive patients, most frequently acute appendicitis (47% of respondents). The effect of protective measures in surgical or endoscopic procedures on infected patients, the effect of endoscopic surgery on infected patients, and the infectivity of positive patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery were prioritized as knowledge gaps and research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Perspectives and priorities of EAES members in the era of the pandemic are hereto summarized. Research evidence is urgently needed to effectively respond to challenges arisen from the pandemic.

Validation of the mobile serious game application Touch Surgery™ for cognitive training and assessment of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Touch Surgery™ (TS) is a serious gaming application for cognitive task simulation and rehearsal of key steps in surgical procedures. The aim was to establish face, content, and construct validity of TS for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Furthermore, learning curves with TS and a virtual reality (VR) trainer were compared in a randomized trial. METHODS: The performance of medical students and general surgeons was compared for all three modules of LC in TS to establish construct validity. Questionnaires assessed face and content validity. For analysis of learning curves, students were randomized to train on VR or TS first, and then switched to the other training modality. Performance data were recorded. RESULTS: 54 Surgeons and 51 medical students completed the validation study. Surgeons outperformed students with TS: patient preparation (students = 45.0 ± 19.1%; surgeons = 57.3 ± 15.2%; p < 0.001), access and laparoscopy (students = 70.2 ± 10.9%; surgeons = 75.9 ± 9.7%; p = 0.008) and LC (students = 69.8 ± 12.4%; surgeons = 77.7 ± 9.6%; p < 0.001). Both groups agreed that TS was a highly useful and realistic application. 46 students were randomized for learning curve analysis. It took them 2-4 attempts to reach a 100% score with TS. Training with TS first did not improve students' performance on the VR trainer; however, students who trained with VR first scored significantly higher in module 3 of TS. CONCLUSION: TS is an accepted serious gaming application for learning cognitive aspects of LC with established construct, face, and content validity. There appeared to be a synergy between TS and the VR trainer. Therefore, the two training modalities should accompany one another in a multimodal training approach to laparoscopy.

Direct Observation versus Endoscopic Video Recording-Based Rating with the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills for Training of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

PURPOSE: The validated Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) score is used for evaluating laparoscopic surgical performance. It consists of two subscores, a Global Rating Scale (GRS) and a Specific Technical Skills (STS) scale. The OSATS has accepted construct validity for direct observation ratings by experts to discriminate between trainees' levels of experience. Expert time is scarce. Endoscopic video recordings would facilitate assessment with the OSATS. We aimed to compare video OSATS with direct OSATS. METHODS: We included 79 participants with different levels of experience [58 medical students, 15 junior residents (novices), and 6 experts]. Performance of a cadaveric porcine laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was evaluated with OSATS by blinded expert raters by direct observation and then as an endoscopic video recording. Operative time was recorded. RESULTS: Direct OSATS rating and video OSATS rating correlated significantly (x03C1; = 0.33, p = 0.005). Significant construct validity was found for direct OSATS in distinguishing between students or novices and experts. Students and novices were not different in direct OSATS or video OSATS. Mean operative times varied for students (73.4 ± 9.0 min), novices (65.2 ± 22.3 min), and experts (46.8 ± 19.9 min). Internal consistency was high between the GRS and STS subscores for both direct and video OSATS with Cronbach's α of 0.76 and 0.86, respectively. Video OSATS and operative time in combination was a better predictor of direct OSATS than each single parameter. CONCLUSION: Direct OSATS rating was better than endoscopic video rating for differentiating between students or novices and experts for LC and should remain the standard approach for the discrimination of experience levels. However, in the absence of experts for direct rating, video OSATS supplemented with operative time should be used instead of single parameters for predicting direct OSATS scores.

Virtual reality does not meet expectations in a pilot study on multimodal laparoscopic surgery training.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to determine the value of virtual reality (VR) training for a multimodality training program of basic laparoscopic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants in a two-day multimodality training for laparoscopic surgery used box trainers, live animal training, and cadaveric training on the pulsating organ perfusion (POP) trainer in a structured and standardized training program. The participants were divided into two groups. The VR group (n = 13) also practiced with VR training during the program, whereas the control group (n = 14) did not use VR training. The training modalities were assessed using questionnaires with a five-point Likert scale after the program. Concerning VR training, members of the control group assessed their expectations, whereas the VR group assessed the actual experience of using it. Skills performance was evaluated with five standardized test tasks in a live porcine model before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the training program. Laparoscopic skills were measured by task completion time and a general performance score for each task. Baseline tests were compared with laparoscopic experience of all participants for construct validity of the skills test. RESULTS: The expected benefit from VR training of the control group was higher than the experienced benefit of the VR group. Box and POP training received better ratings from the VR group than from the control group for some purposes. Both groups improved their skill parameters significantly from pre-training to post-training tests [score +17 % (P < 0.01), time -29 % (P < 0.01)]. No significant difference was found between the two groups for laparoscopic skills improvement except for the score in the instrument coordination task. Construct validity of the skills test was significant for both time and score. CONCLUSIONS: At its current level of performance, VR training does not meet expectations. No additional benefit was observed from VR training in our multimodality training program.

LigaSure versus conventional dissection technique in pancreatoduodenectomy: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery requires extensive preparation and tissue dissection. Therefore, LigaSure (Valleylab, Boulder, CO) provides an alternative to conventional dissection techniques. The aim of the present study was to describe the feasibility, safety, and cost efficiency of LigaSure in pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: Seven patients underwent surgery with the Ligasure and 7 patients underwent surgery with conventional dissection techniques. The patients were investigated for surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, mortality, duration of hospital stay, and surgery-related costs. RESULTS: Surgical time was 207 minutes in the LigaSure group and 255 minutes in the conventional group (P = .020). Intraoperative blood loss was 271 and 771 mL, respectively (P = .010). Other perioperative outcomes were comparable. The respective surgery-related costs averaged €4,125 and €4,931 (P = .023). CONCLUSIONS: The use of LigaSure in pancreatoduodenectomy seems to be feasible and safe. In addition, it might lead to a reduction in the surgery-related costs.

Is a barium swallow complementary to endoscopy essential in the preoperative assessment of laparoscopic antireflux and hiatal hernia surgery?

BACKGROUND: Barium swallow is considered essential in the preoperative assessment of gastroesophaeal reflux disease and hiatal hernias. The objective of this study was to investigate the effective value of a barium swallow if complementary to the commonly recommended endoscopy before laparoscopic antireflux and hiatal hernia surgery. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 40 consecutive patients who were tested with preoperative barium swallow and endoscopy before laparoscopic surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease and/or symptomatic hiatal hernia. Results regarding the presence and the type of hiatal hernia found by barium swallow and endoscopy were correlated with the intraoperative finding as the reference standard. RESULTS: Intraoperative findings revealed 21 axial, 7 paraesophageal, and 12 mixed hiatal hernias. Barium swallow and endoscopy allowed the diagnosis of hiatal hernia in 75% and 97.5%, respectively (p = 0.003). The correct classification of hiatal hernia was confirmed in 50% by barium swallow and 80% by endoscopy (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Although barium swallow is recommended as an important diagnostic tool in the workup before surgical antireflux and hiatal hernia therapy, our results suggest that if mandatory endoscopy is performed preoperatively, a barium swallow does not provide any further essential information. It seems that barium swallow can be omitted as a basic diagnostic test before primary laparoscopic antireflux and hiatal hernia surgery.

In vivo accuracy assessment of a needle-based navigation system for CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of the liver.

Computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has become a commonly used procedure in the treatment of liver tumors. One of the main challenges related to the method is the exact placement of the instrument within the lesion. To address this issue, a system was developed for computer-assisted needle placement which uses a set of fiducial needles to compensate for organ motion in real time. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of the system in vivo. Two medical experts with experience in CT-guided interventions and two nonexperts used the navigation system to perform 32 needle insertions into contrasted agar nodules injected into the livers of two ventilated swine. Skin-to-target path planning and real-time needle guidance were based on preinterventional 1 mm CT data slices. The lesions were hit in 97% of all trials with a mean user error of 2.4 +/- 2.1 mm, a mean target registration error (TRE) of 2.1 +/- 1.1 mm, and a mean overall targeting error of 3.7 +/- 2.3 mm. The nonexperts achieved significantly better results than the experts with an overall error of 2.8 +/- 1.4 mm (n=16) compared to 4.5 +/- 2.7 mm (n=16). The mean time for performing four needle insertions based on one preinterventional planning CT was 57 +/- 19 min with a mean setup time of 27 min, which includes the steps fiducial insertion (24 +/- 15 min), planning CT acquisition (1 +/- 0 min), and registration (2 +/- 1 min). The mean time for path planning and targeting was 5 +/- 4 and 2 +/- 1 min, respectively. Apart from the fiducial insertion step, experts and nonexperts performed comparably fast. It is concluded that the system allows for accurate needle placement into hepatic tumors based on one planning CT and could thus enable considerable improvement to the clinical treatment standard for RFA procedures and other CT-guided interventions in the liver. To support clinical application of the method, optimization of individual system modules to reduce intervention time is proposed.

Robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Despite its reduced aggressiveness and excellent results obtained in certain diseases, minimally invasive surgery did not manage to significantly lower the risks of esophageal resections. Further advances in technology led to the creation of robotic systems with their unique maneuverability of the instruments and exceptional view on the operative field, thus setting the prerequisites for performance in complex surgical procedures and offering new possibilities to a disease notorious for its dismal prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy technique was used in a patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the lower esophagus that had high medical risk for surgical therapy. RESULTS: Esophageal resection and reconstruction were possible through a robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal approach. There were no intraoperative incidents, blood loss was minimal, and lymph node dissection and removal was possible during the procedure. Early ambulation and conservative treatment of the mild complications that occurred offered a favorable postoperative outcome. CONCLUSION: The robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy technique is feasible and safe. Complex procedures become less technically demanding with the help of the robotic system and, thus, the minimally invasive approach can be offered for the benefit of selected patients. Further studies are required to confirm these observations and to establish the role of this procedure in the future.