Assessing VATS competence based on simulated lobectomies of all five lung lobes.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the number of procedures and expert raters necessary to provide a reliable assessment of competence in Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) lobectomy. METHODS: Three randomly selected VATS lobectomies were performed on a virtual reality simulator by participants with varying experience in VATS. Video recordings of the procedures were independently rated by three blinded VATS experts using a modified VATS lobectomy assessment tool (VATSAT). The unitary framework of validity was used to describe validity evidence, and generalizability theory was used to explore the reliability of different assessment options. RESULTS: Forty-one participants (22 novices, 10 intermediates, and 9 experienced) performed a total of 123 lobectomies. Internal consistency reliability, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability were 0.94, 0.85, and 0.90, respectively. Generalizability theory found that a minimum of two procedures and four raters or three procedures and three raters were needed to ensure the overall reliability of 0.8. ANOVA showed significant differences in test scores between the three groups (P < 0.001). A pass/fail level of 19 out of 25 points was established using the contrasting groups' standard setting method, leaving one false positive (one novice passed) and zero false negatives (all experienced passed). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated validity evidence for a VR simulator test with different lung lobes, and a credible pass/fail level was identified. Our results can be used to implement a standardized mastery learning training program for trainees in VATS lobectomies that ensures that everyone reaches basic competency before performing supervised operations on patients.

Evaluating competency in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy performance using a novel assessment tool and virtual reality simulation.

BACKGROUND: Competency-based training has gained ground in surgical training and with it assessment tools to ensure that training objectives are met. Very few assessment tools are available for evaluating performance in thoracoscopic procedures. Video recordings would provide the possibility of blinded assessment and limited rater bias. This study aimed to provide validity evidence for a newly developed and dedicated tool for assessing competency in Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) lobectomy. METHODS: Participants with varying experience with VATS lobectomy were included from different countries. Video recordings from participants' performance of a VATS right upper lobe lobectomy on a virtual reality simulator were rated by three raters using a modified version of a newly developed VATS lobectomy assessment tool (the VATSAT) and analyzed in relation to the unitary framework (content, response process, internal structure, relation to other variables, and consequences of testing). RESULTS: Fifty-three participants performed two consecutive simulated VATS lobectomies on the virtual reality simulator, leaving a total of 106 videos. Content established in previously published studies. Response process Standardized data collection was ensured by using an instructional element, uniform data collection, a special rating program, and automatic generation of the results to a database. Raters were carefully instructed in using the VATSAT, and tryout ratings were carried out. Internal structure Inter-rater reliability was calculated as intra-class correlation coefficients, to 0.91 for average measures (p < 0.001). Test/re-test reliability was calculated as Pearson's r of 0.70 (p < 0.001). G-coefficient was calculated to be 0.79 with two procedures and three raters. By performing D-theory was found that either three procedures rated by two raters or five procedures rated by one rater were enough to reach an acceptable G-coefficient of ≥ 0.8. Relation to other variables Significant differences between groups were found (p < 0.001). The participants' VATS lobectomy experience correlated significantly to their VATSAT score (p = 0.016). Consequences of testing The pass/fail score was found to be 14.9 points by the contrasting groups' method, leaving five false positive (29%) and six false negatives (43%). CONCLUSION: Validity evidence was provided for the VATSAT according to the unitary framework. The VATSAT provides supervisors and assessors with a procedure-specific assessment tool for evaluating VATS lobectomy performance and aids with the decision of when the trainee is ready for unsupervised performance.

The left upper lobe challenge in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery-use of a composite score to improve the assessment of simulated lobectomy.

AIM: The aim of this study is to develop a reliable composite score based on simulator metrics to assess competency in virtual reality video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy and explore the benefits of combining it with expert rater assessments. METHODS: Standardized objective assessments (time, bleeding, economy of movement) and subjective expert rater assessments from 2 previous studies were combined. A linear mixed model including experience level, lobe and the number of previous simulated procedures was applied for the repeated measurements. Reliability for each of the 4 assessments was calculated using Cronbach's alpha. The Nelder-Mead numerical optimization algorithm was used for optimal weighting of scores. A pass-fail standard for the composite score was determined using the contrasting groups' method. RESULTS: In total, 123 virtual reality video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomies were included. Across the 4 different assessments, there were significant effects (P < 0.01) of experience, lobe, and simulator experience, but not for simulator attempts on bleeding (P = 0.98). The left upper lobe was significantly more difficult compared to other lobes (P = 0.02). A maximum reliability of 0.92 could be achieved by combining the standardized simulator metrics with standardized expert rater scores. The pass/fail level for the composite score when including 1 expert rater was 0.33. CONCLUSIONS: Combining simulator metrics with 1 or 2 raters increases reliability and can serve as a more objective method for assessing surgical trainees. The composite score may be used to implement a standardized and feasible simulation-based mastery training program in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy.

Assessment of competence in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy: A Danish nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: Competence in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy has previously been established on the basis of numbers of procedures performed, but this approach does not ensure competence. Specific assessment tools, such as the newly developed video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy assessment tool, allow for structured and objective assessment of competence. Our aim was to provide validity evidence for the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy assessment tool. METHODS: Video recordings of 60 video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomies performed by 18 thoracic surgeons were rated using the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy assessment tool. All 4 centers of thoracic surgery in Denmark participated in the study. Two video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery experts rated the videos. They were blinded to surgeon and center. RESULTS: The total internal consistency reliability Cronbach's alpha was 0.93. Inter-rater reliability between the 2 raters was Pearson's r = 0.71 (P < .001). The mean video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy assessment tool scores for the 10 procedures performed by beginners were 22.1 (standard deviation [SD], 8.6) for the 28 procedures performed by the intermediate surgeons, 31.2 (SD, 4.4), and for the 20 procedures performed by experts 35.9 (SD, 2.9) (P < .001). Bonferroni post hoc tests showed that experts were significantly better than intermediates (P < .008) and beginners (P < .001). Intermediates' mean scores were significantly better than beginners (P < .001). The pass/fail standard calculated using the contrasting group's method was 31 points. One of the beginners passed, and 2 experts failed the test. CONCLUSIONS: Validity evidence was provided for a newly developed assessment tool for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy assessment tool) in a clinical setting. The discriminatory ability among expert surgeons, intermediate surgeons, and beginners proved highly significant. The video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy assessment tool could be an important aid in the future training and certification of thoracic surgeons.