Evaluation of objective tools and artificial intelligence in robotic surgery technical skills assessment: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to standardize training in robotic surgery, including objective assessment for accreditation. This systematic review aimed to identify objective tools for technical skills assessment, providing evaluation statuses to guide research and inform implementation into training curricula. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Ovid Embase/Medline, PubMed and Web of Science were searched. Inclusion criterion: robotic surgery technical skills tools. Exclusion criteria: non-technical, laparoscopy or open skills only. Manual tools and automated performance metrics (APMs) were analysed using Messick's concept of validity and the Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence and Recommendation (LoR). A bespoke tool analysed artificial intelligence (AI) studies. The Modified Downs-Black checklist was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-seven studies were analysed, identifying: 8 global rating scales, 26 procedure-/task-specific tools, 3 main error-based methods, 10 simulators, 28 studies analysing APMs and 53 AI studies. Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills and the da Vinci Skills Simulator were the most evaluated tools at LoR 1 (OCEBM). Three procedure-specific tools, 3 error-based methods and 1 non-simulator APMs reached LoR 2. AI models estimated outcomes (skill or clinical), demonstrating superior accuracy rates in the laboratory with 60 per cent of methods reporting accuracies over 90 per cent, compared to real surgery ranging from 67 to 100 per cent. CONCLUSIONS: Manual and automated assessment tools for robotic surgery are not well validated and require further evaluation before use in accreditation processes.PROSPERO: registration ID CRD42022304901.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is increasingly used worldwide to treat many different diseases. The robot is controlled by a surgeon, which may give them greater precision and better outcomes for patients. However, surgeons' robotic skills should be assessed properly, to make sure patients are safe, to improve feedback and for exam assessments for certification to indicate competency. This should be done by experts, using assessment tools that have been agreed upon and proven to work. AIM: This review's aim was to find and explain which training and examination tools are best for assessing surgeons' robotic skills and to find out what gaps remain requiring future research. METHOD: This review searched for all available studies looking at assessment tools in robotic surgery and summarized their findings using several different methods. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: Two hundred and forty-seven studies were looked at, finding many assessment tools. Further research is needed for operation-specific and automatic assessment tools before they should be used in the clinical setting.

Quality of Reporting on Anastomotic Leaks in Colorectal Cancer Trials: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Although attempts have been made in the past to establish consensus regarding the definitions and grading of the severity of colorectal anastomotic leakage, widespread adoption has remained limited. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of the literature was conducted with the objective of examining the various elements used to report and define anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer resections. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A systematic review, using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Database, of all published randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses containing data related to adult patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery and reporting anastomotic leakage as a primary or secondary outcome, with a definition of anastomotic leakage included. OUTCOMES: Definitions of anatomotic leakage, clinical symptoms, radiological modalities and findings, findings at reoperation, as well as grading terminology or classifications for anastomotic leakage. RESULTS: Of the 471 articles reporting anastomotic leakage as a primary or secondary outcome, a definition was reported in 95 studies (45 randomized controlled trials, 13 systematic reviews, and 37 meta-analyses), involving a total of 346,140 patients. Of these 95 articles, 68% reported clinical signs and symptoms of anastomotic leakage, 26% biochemical criteria, 63% radiological modalities, 62% radiological findings, and 13% findings at reintervention. Only 45% (n = 43) of included studies reported grading of anastomotic leakage severity or leak classification, and 41% (n = 39) included a timeframe for reporting. LIMITATIONS: There was a high heterogeneity between the included studies. CONCLUSION: This evidence synthesis confirmed incomplete and inconsistent reporting of anastomotic leakage across the published colorectal cancer literature. There is a great need for the development and implementation of a consensus framework for defining, grading, and reporting anastomotic leakage. REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered at PROSPERO ID 454660.

Assessment and application of non-technical skills in robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Undeniably, robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has become very popular in recent decades, but it has introduced challenges to the workflow of the surgical team. Non-technical skills (NTS) have received less emphasis than technical skills in training and assessment. The systematic review aimed to update the evidence on the role of NTS in robotic surgery, specifically focusing on evaluating assessment tools and their utilisation in training and surgical education in robotic surgery. METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE was conducted to identify primary articles on NTS in RAS. Messick's validity framework and the Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument were utilised to evaluate the quality of the validity evidence of the abstracted articles. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were eligible for the final analysis. Communication, environmental factors, anticipation and teamwork were key NTS for RAS. Team-related factors such as ambient noise and chatter, inconveniences due to repeated requests during the procedure and constraints due to poor design of the operating room may harm patient safety during RAS. Three novel rater-based scoring systems and one sensor-based method for assessing NTS in RAS were identified. Anticipation by the team to predict and execute the next move before an explicit verbal command improved the surgeon's situational awareness. CONCLUSION: This systematic review highlighted the paucity of reporting on non-technical skills in robotic surgery with only three bespoke objective assessment tools being identified. Communication, environmental factors, anticipation, and teamwork are the key non-technical skills reported in robotic surgery, and further research is required to investigate their benefits to improve patient safety during robotic surgery.

The application of objective clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) in the assessment of basic robotic surgical skills.

BACKGROUND: Using a validated, objective, and standardised assessment tool to assess progression and competency is essential for basic robotic surgical training programmes. Objective clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) is an error-based assessment tool that provides in-depth analysis of individual technical errors. We conducted a feasibility study to assess the concurrent validity and reliability of OCHRA when applied to basic, generic robotic technical skills assessment. METHODS: Selected basic robotic surgical skill tasks, in virtual reality (VR) and dry lab equivalent, were performed by novice robotic surgeons during an intensive 5-day robotic surgical skills course on da Vinci® X and Xi surgical systems. For each task, we described a hierarchical task analysis. Our developed robotic surgical-specific OCHRA methodology was applied to error events in recorded videos with a standardised definition. Statistical analysis to assess concurrent validity with existing tools and inter-rater reliability were performed. RESULTS: OCHRA methodology was applied to 272 basic robotic surgical skills tasks performed by 20 novice robotic surgeons. Performance scores improved from the start of the course to the end using all three assessment tools; Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) [VR: t(19) = - 9.33, p < 0.001] [dry lab: t(19) = - 10.17, p < 0.001], OCHRA [VR: t(19) = 6.33, p < 0.001] [dry lab: t(19) = 10.69, p < 0.001] and automated VR [VR: t(19) = - 8.26, p < 0.001]. Correlation analysis, for OCHRA compared to GEARS and automated VR scores, shows a significant and strong inverse correlation in every VR and dry lab task; OCHRA vs GEARS [VR: mean r = - 0.78, p < 0.001] [dry lab: mean r = - 0.82, p < 0.001] and OCHRA vs automated VR [VR: mean r = - 0.77, p < 0.001]. There is very strong and significant inter-rater reliability between two independent reviewers (r = 0.926, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: OCHRA methodology provides a detailed error analysis tool in basic robotic surgical skills with high reliability and concurrent validity with existing tools. OCHRA requires further evaluation in more advanced robotic surgical procedures.

Sustainability in surgical practice: a collaborative call toward environmental sustainability in operating rooms.

BACKGROUND: The healthcare system plays a pivotal role in environmental sustainability, and the operating room (OR) significantly contributes to its overall carbon footprint. In response to this critical challenge, leading medical societies, government bodies, regulatory agencies, and industry stakeholders are taking measures to address healthcare sustainability and its impact on climate change. Healthcare now represents almost 20% of the US national economy and 8.5% of US carbon emissions. Internationally, healthcare represents 5% of global carbon emissions. US Healthcare is an outlier in both per capita cost, and per capita greenhouse gas emission, with almost twice per capita emissions compared to every other country in the world. METHODS: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) established the Sustainability in Surgical Practice joint task force in 2023. This collaborative effort aims to actively promote education, mitigation, and innovation, steering surgical practices toward a more sustainable future. RESULTS: Several key initiatives have included a survey of members' knowledge and awareness, a scoping review of terminology, metrics, and initiatives, and deep engagement of key stakeholders. DISCUSSION: This position paper serves as a Call to Action, proposing a series of actions to catalyze and accelerate the surgical sustainability leadership needed to respond effectively to climate change, and to lead the societal transformation towards health that our times demand.

Scoping review for the SAGES EAES joint collaborative on sustainability in surgical practice.

BACKGROUND: Surgical care in the operating room (OR) contributes one-third of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in healthcare. The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) initiated a joint Task Force to promote sustainability within minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted by searching MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Elsevier, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus on August 25th, 2023 to identify articles reporting on the impact of gastrointestinal surgical care on the environment. The objectives were to establish the terminology, outcome measures, and scope associated with sustainable surgical practice. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We screened 22,439 articles to identify 85 articles relevant to anesthesia, general surgical practice, and gastrointestinal surgery. There were 58/85 (68.2%) cohort studies and 12/85 (14.1%) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies. The most commonly measured outcomes were kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (kg CO2eq), cost of resource consumption in US dollars or euros, surgical waste in kg, water consumption in liters, and energy consumption in kilowatt-hours. Surgical waste production and the use of anesthetic gases were among the largest contributors to the climate impact of surgical practice. Educational initiatives to educate surgical staff on the climate impact of surgery, recycling programs, and strategies to restrict the use of noxious anesthetic gases had the highest impact in reducing the carbon footprint of surgical care. Establishing green teams with multidisciplinary champions is an effective strategy to initiate a sustainability program in gastrointestinal surgery. CONCLUSION: This review establishes standard terminology and outcome measures used to define the environmental footprint of surgical practices. Impactful initiatives to achieve sustainability in surgical practice will require education and multidisciplinary collaborations among key stakeholders including surgeons, researchers, operating room staff, hospital managers, industry partners, and policymakers.

Perspectives on sustainability among surgeons: findings from the SAGES-EAES sustainability in surgical practice task force survey.

BACKGROUND: Surgical care significantly contributes to healthcare-associated greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Surgeon attitudes about mitigation of the impact of surgical practice on environmental sustainability remains poorly understood. To better understand surgeon perspectives globally, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery established a joint Sustainability in Surgical Practice (SSP) Task Force and distributed a survey on sustainability. METHODS: Our survey asked about (1) surgeon attitudes toward sustainability, (2) ability to estimate the carbon footprint of surgical procedures and supplies, (3) concerns about the negative impacts of sustainable interventions, (4) willingness to change specific practices, and (5) preferred educational topics and modalities. Questions were primarily written in Likert-scale format. A clustering analysis was performed to determine whether survey respondents could be grouped into distinct subsets to inform future outreach and education efforts. RESULTS: We received 1024 responses, predominantly from North America and Europe. The study revealed that while 63% of respondents were motivated to enhance the sustainability of their practice, less than 10% could accurately estimate the carbon footprint of surgical activities. Most were not concerned that sustainability efforts would negatively impact their practice and showed readiness to adopt proposed sustainable practices. Online webinars and modules were the preferred educational methods. A clustering analysis identified a group particularly concerned yet willing to adopt sustainable changes. CONCLUSION: Surgeons believe that operating room waste is a critical issue and are willing to change practice to improve it. However, there exists a gap in understanding the environmental impact of surgical procedures and supplies, and a sizable minority have some degree of concern about potential adverse consequences of implementing sustainable policies. This study uniquely provides an international, multidisciplinary snapshot of surgeons' attitudes, knowledge, concerns, willingness, and preferred educational modalities related to mitigating the environmental impact of surgical practice.

EAES/SAGES evidence-based recommendations and expert consensus on optimization of perioperative care in older adults.

BACKGROUND: As the population ages, more older adults are presenting for surgery. Age-related declines in physiological reserve and functional capacity can result in frailty and poor outcomes after surgery. Hence, optimizing perioperative care in older patients is imperative. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) may influence surgical outcomes, but current use and impact on older adults patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations on perioperative care of older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Expert consensus determined working definitions for key terms and metrics related to perioperative care. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for 24 pre-defined key questions in the topic areas of prehabilitation, MIS, and ERAS in major abdominal surgery (colorectal, upper gastrointestinal (UGI), Hernia, and hepatopancreatic biliary (HPB)) to generate evidence-based recommendations following the GRADE methodology. RESULT: Older adults were defined as 65 years and older. Over 20,000 articles were initially retrieved from search parameters. Evidence synthesis was performed across the three topic areas from 172 studies, with meta-analyses conducted for MIS and ERAS topics. The use of MIS and ERAS was recommended for older adult patients particularly when undergoing colorectal surgery. Expert opinion recommended prehabilitation, cessation of smoking and alcohol, and correction of anemia in all colorectal, UGI, Hernia, and HPB procedures in older adults. All recommendations were conditional, with low to very low certainty of evidence, with the exception of ERAS program in colorectal surgery. CONCLUSIONS: MIS and ERAS are recommended in older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery, with evidence supporting use in colorectal surgery. Though expert opinion supported prehabilitation, there is insufficient evidence supporting use. This work has identified evidence gaps for further studies to optimize older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Objective assessment tools in laparoscopic or robotic-assisted gynecological surgery: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: There is a growing emphasis on proficiency-based progression within surgical training. To enable this, clearly defined metrics for those newly acquired surgical skills are needed. These can be formulated in objective assessment tools. The aim of the present study was to systematically review the literature reporting on available tools for objective assessment of minimally invasive gynecological surgery (simulated) performance and evaluate their reliability and validity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search (1989-2022) was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science in accordance with PRISMA. The trial was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) ID: CRD42022376552. Randomized controlled trials, prospective comparative studies, prospective single-group (with pre- and post-training assessment) or consensus studies that reported on the development, validation or usage of assessment tools of surgical performance in minimally invasive gynecological surgery, were included. Three independent assessors assessed study setting and validity evidence according to a contemporary framework of validity, which was adapted from Messick's validity framework. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the modified medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI) checklist. Heterogeneity in data reporting on types of tools, data collection, study design, definition of expertise (novice vs. experts) and statistical values prevented a meaningful meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 19 746 titles and abstracts were screened of which 72 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 37 different assessment tools were identified of which 13 represented manual global assessment tools, 13 manual procedure-specific assessment tools and 11 automated performance metrices. Only two tools showed substantive evidence of validity. Reliability and validity per tool were provided. No assessment tools showed direct correlation between tool scores and patient related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Existing objective assessment tools lack evidence on predicting patient outcomes and suffer from limitations in transferability outside of the research environment, particularly for automated performance metrics. Future research should prioritize filling these gaps while integrating advanced technologies like kinematic data and AI for robust, objective surgical skill assessment within gynecological advanced surgical training programs.

Laparoscopic and robotic surgery for colorectal cancer in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: As life expectancy has been increasing, older patients are becoming more central to the healthcare system, leading to more intensive care use and longer hospital stays. Nevertheless, advancements in minimally invasive surgical techniques offer safe and effective options for older patients with colorectal diseases. This study aims to provide comprehensive evidence on the role of minimally invasive surgery in treating colorectal diseases in older patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All articles directly compared the minimally invasive approach with open surgery in patients aged ≥65 years. The present metanalysis took 30-day complications as primary outcomes. Length of hospital stay, readmission, and 30-day mortality were also assessed, as secondary outcomes. Further subgroup analyses were carried out based on surgery setting, lesion features, and location. RESULTS: After searching the main databases, 84 articles were included. Evaluation of 30-day complications rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality significantly favored minimally invasive approaches. The outcome readmission did not show any significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The current metanalysis demonstrates clear advantages of minimally invasive techniques over open surgery in colorectal procedures for older patients, particularly in reducing complications, mortality, and hospitalization. This suggests that prioritizing these techniques, based on available expertise and facilities, could improve outcomes and quality of care for older patients undergoing colorectal surgery.