Using video-based assessment (VBA) to document fellow improvement in safely completing the jejunojejunostomy portion of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical assessment instruments are used for formative and summative trainee evaluations. To characterize the features of existing instruments and a novel 12-item objective, procedure-specific assessment tool for Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB-OPSA), we evaluated the progress of a single surgical fellow over 17 consecutive surgeries. METHODS: Seventeen consecutive RYGB videos completed between 8/2021 and 1/2022 by an academic hospital surgical fellow were de-identified and assessed by four board-certified bariatric surgeons using Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS), General Assessment of Surgical Skill (GASS), and RYGB-OPSA which includes the reflection of transverse colon, identification of ligament of Treitz, biliopancreatic and Roux limbs orientation, jejunal division point selection, stapler use, mesentery division, bleeding control, jejunojejunostomy (JJ) anastomotic site selection, apposition of JJ anastomotic site, JJ creation, common enterotomy closure of JJ, and integrity of anastomosis. The GASS measured economy of motion, tissue handling, appreciating operative anatomy, bimanual dexterity, and achievement of hemostasis. RYGB-OPSA and GASS items were scored "poor-unsafe," "acceptable-safe," or "good-safe." Change in performance was measured by linear trendline slope. RESULTS: Over the course of 17 procedures, significant improvement was demonstrated by three GOALS items, GOALS overall score, GASS bimanual dexterity, and three RYGB-OPSA tasks: JJ creation, jejunal division point selection, and stapler use. Achievement of hemostasis declined but never rated "poor-unsafe." Overall RYGB-OPSA and GOALS trendlines documented significant increase across the 17 procedures. CONCLUSION: This examination of a bariatric surgery fellow's operative training experience as measured by three surgical assessment instruments demonstrated anticipated improvements in general skills and safe completion of procedure-specific tasks. Effective surgical assessment instruments have enough sensitivity to show improvement to enable meaningful trainee feedback (low-stakes assessments) as well as the ability to determine safe surgical practice to enable promotion to greater autonomous practice.

Global assessment of surgical skills (GASS): validation of a new instrument to measure global technical safety in surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND: Broad implementation of the American Board of Surgery's entrustable professional activities initiative will require assessment instruments that are reliable and easy to use. Existing assessment instruments of general laparoscopic surgical skills have limited reliability, efficiency, and validity across the spectrum of formative (low-stakes) and summative (high-stakes) assessments. A novel six-item global assessment of surgical skills (GASS) instrument was developed and evaluated with a focus upon safe versus unsafe surgical practice scoring rubric. METHODS: The GASS was developed by iterative engagement with expert laparoscopic surgeons and includes six items (economy of motion, tissue handling, appreciating operative anatomy, bimanual dexterity, achievement of hemostasis, overall performance) with a uniform three-point scoring rubric ("poor-unsafe", "adequate-safe", "good-safe"). To test inter-rater reliability, a cross-sectional study of four bariatric surgeons with experience ranging from 4 to 28 years applied the GASS and the global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills (GOALS) to 30 consecutive Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure operative videos. Inter-rater reliability was assessed for a simplified dichotomous "safe" versus "unsafe" scoring rubric using Gwet's AC2. RESULTS: The GASS inter-rater reliability was very high across all six domains (0.88-1.00). The GASS performed comparably to the GOALS inter-rater reliability scores (0.96-1.00). The economy of motion and bimanual dexterity items had the highest percentage of unsafe ratings (9.2% and 5.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The GASS, a novel six-item instrument of general laparoscopic surgical skills, was designed with a simple scoring rubric (poor-safe, adequate-safe, good-safe) to minimize rater burden and focus feedback to trainees and promotion evaluations on safe surgical performance. Initial evaluation of the GASS is promising, demonstrating high inter-rater reliability. Future research will seek to assess the GASS against a broader spectrum of laparoscopic procedures.

Laparoscopic appendectomy--is it worth the cost? Trend analysis in the US from 2000 to 2005.

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic appendectomy is widely used for treatment of appendicitis, it is still unclear if it is superior to the open approach. STUDY DESIGN: From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2000 to 2005, hospitalizations with the primary ICD-9 procedure code of laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) were included in this study. Outcomes of length of stay, costs, and complications were assessed by stratified analysis for uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis (perforation or abscess). Regression methods were used to adjust for covariates and to detect trends. Costs were rescaled using the hospital and related services portion of the Medical Consumer Price Index. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2005, 132,663 (56.3%) patients underwent OA and 102,810 (43.7%) had LA. Frequency of LA increased from 32.2% to 58.0% (p < 0.001); conversion rates decreased from 9.9% to 6.9% (p < 0.001). Covariate adjusted length of stay for LA was approximately 15% shorter than for OA in both uncomplicated and complicated cases (p < 0.001). Adjusted costs for LA were 22% higher in uncomplicated appendicitis and 9% higher in patients with complicated appendicitis (p < 0.001). Costs and length of stay decreased over time in OA and LA. The risk for a complication was higher in the LA group (p < 0.05, odds ratio=1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14) with uncomplicated appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: LA results in higher costs and increased morbidity for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. Nevertheless, LA is increasingly used. Patients undergoing LA benefit from a slightly shorter hospital stay. In general, open appendectomy may be the preferred approach for patients with acute appendicitis, with indication for LA in selected subgroups of patients.