The standardized procedure, technical key points and latest progress of laparoscopic lateral suspension surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition that can affect up to 30% of women over the age of 50. For a long time, open abdominal and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) have been considered the gold standard in the treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Promontory dissection may expose patients to potential life-threatening intraoperative vascular injuries, as well as damage to sacral roots or the hypogastric nerve. Laparoscopic lateral suspension could be considered as an alternative to LSCP in the treatment of POP due to its favorable objective and subjective outcomes. The aim of this article is to demonstrate a step-by-step approach to laparoscopic lateral suspension for POP with the goal of standardizing this procedure. Technical key points and the latest progress are summarized to provide a reference for subsequent gynecological and urological surgeons. METHOD: According to our surgical experience of our hospital, demonstrate a step-by-step approach and highlight technical key points for laparoscopic lateral suspension for POP with the aim of standardizing this procedure. CONCLUSION: LLS with mesh is a safe alternative to laparoscopic sacropexy and is very well suited for uterine-preserving POP surgery. Nevertheless, this novel procedure lacks standardization. Standardization of procedures is necessary to reduce failure rates, generate impactful research data, and enhance patient safety. This article contributes to the standardization of this procedure, and we believe our article will be useful in assisting future gynecological and urological surgeons in performing this procedure.

Can Computerized Simulation be Used to Assess Surgical Proficiency in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgeries? A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Computerized simulation (CS) of surgery in virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) settings are used to teach foundational skills, but its applicability in advanced training is to be determined. This review aims to summarize the types of CS available for laparoscopic colorectal surgery (CRS) and its utility in assessment of proficiency. METHODS: A systematic review of CS in laparoscopic CRS was done on PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases. RESULTS: Eleven relevant observational studies were identified. The most common procedure simulated was laparoscopic colectomy. Assessment using performance metrics measured by the simulator such as path length moved by laparoscopic tools, procedure time and number of discrete movements had the most consistent differentiating ability between expert and non-expert cohorts. Surgeons fared similarly in proficiency scores in assessment with CS compared to assessment with traditional cadaveric or porcine models. CONCLUSION: CS of laparoscopic CRS may be used in assessment of proficiency using performance metrics measuring economy of movement. CS may be a viable assessment tool in advanced surgical training, but further studies should assess utility of incorporating it as a formal assessment tool in training programs.

Defining Global Benchmarks in Elective Secondary Bariatric Surgery Comprising Conversional, Revisional, and Reversal Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To define "best possible" outcomes for secondary bariatric surgery (BS). BACKGROUND: Management of poor response and of long-term complications after BS is complex and under-investigated. Indications and types of reoperations vary widely and postoperative complication rates are higher compared to primary BS. METHODS: Out of 44,884 BS performed in 18 high-volume centers from 4 continents between 06/2013-05/2019, 5,349 (12%) secondary BS cases were identified. Twenty-one outcome benchmarks were established in low-risk patients, defined as the 75th percentile of the median outcome values of centers. Benchmark cases had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, thromboembolic events, BMI> 50 kg/m2 or age> 65 years. RESULTS: The benchmark cohort included 3143 cases, mainly females (85%), aged 43.8 ±â€Š10 years, 8.4 ±â€Š5.3 years after primary BS, with a BMI 35.2 ±â€Š7 kg/m2. Main indications were insufficient weight loss (43%) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease/dysphagia (25%). 90-days postoperatively, 14.6% of benchmark patients presented ≥1 complication, mortality was 0.06% (n = 2). Significantly higher morbidity was observed in non-benchmark cases (OR 1.37) and after conversional/reversal or revisional procedures with gastrointestinal suture/stapling (OR 1.84). Benchmark cutoffs for conversional BS were ≤4.5% re-intervention, ≤8.3% re-operation 90-days postoperatively. At 2-years (IQR 1-3) 15.6% of benchmark patients required a reoperation. CONCLUSION: Secondary BS is safe, although postoperative morbidity exceeds the established benchmarks for primary BS. The excess morbidity is due to an increased risk of gastrointestinal leakage and higher need for intensive care. The considerable rate of tertiary BS warrants expertise and future research to optimize the management of non-success after BS.

System Factors Affecting Patient Safety in the OR: An Analysis of Safety Threats and Resiliency.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine the characteristics and frequency of intraoperative safety threats and resilience supports using a human factors measurement tool. BACKGROUND: Human factors analysis can provide insight into how system elements contribute to intraoperative adverse events. Empiric evidence on safety threats and resilience in surgical practice is lacking. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 24 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic general surgery at a single center in the Netherlands from May to November, 2017 was conducted. Video, audio, and patient physiologic data from all included procedures were obtained through a multichannel synchronized recording device. Trained analysts reviewed the recordings and coded safety threats and resilience supports. The codes were categorized into 1 of 6 categories (person, task, tools and technology, physical environment, organization, and external environment). RESULTS: A median of 14 safety threats [interquartile range (IQR) 11-16] and 12 resilience supports (IQR 11-16) were identified per case. Most safety threat codes (median 9, IQR 7-12) and resilience support codes (median 10, IQR 7-12) were classified in the person category. The organization category contained a median of 2 (IQR 1-2) safety threat codes and 2 (IQR 2-3) resilience support codes per case. The tools and technology category contributed a small number of safety threats (median 1 per case, IQR 0-1), but rarely provided resilience support. CONCLUSIONS: Through a detailed human factors analysis of elective laparoscopic general surgery cases, this study provided a quantitative analysis of the existing safety threats and resilience supports in a modern endoscopic operating room.

Surgeon Quality Control and Standardization of D2 Lymphadenectomy for Gastric Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Observational Study (KLASS-02-QC).

OBJECTIVE: To qualify surgeons to participate in a randomized trial comparing laparoscopic and open distal D2 gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No studies have sought to qualify surgeons for a randomized trial comparing laparoscopic and open D2 gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective observational study evaluating unedited videos of laparoscopic and open D2 gastrectomy performed by 27 surgeons. Surgeons performed 3 of each laparoscopic and open distal gastrectomies with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer. Five peers reviewed each unedited video using a video assessment form. Based on experts' review of videos, a separate review committee decided surgeons as "Qualified" or "Not-qualified." RESULTS: Twelve surgeons (44.4%) were qualified on initial evaluation whereas the other 15 surgeons were not. Another 9 surgeons were finally qualified after re-evaluation. The median score for Qualified was significantly higher than Not-qualified (P < 0.001).Significant differences between Qualified and Not-qualified were noted both in operation type and in all evaluation area of surgical skill, perigastric, and extra-perigastric lymphadenectomy, although the inter-rater variability of the assessment score was low (kappa = 0.285). However, Not-qualified surgeons' scores improved upon re-evaluation of resubmitted videos.When compared laparoscopy with open surgery, median scores were similar between the 2 groups (P = 0.680). However, open gastrectomy scores for surgical skills were significantly higher than for laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Our surgeon quality control study for gastrectomy represents a milestone in surgical standardization for surgical clinical trials. Our methods could also serve as a system for educating surgeons and assessing surgical proficiency.

Hospital variation in responses to safety warnings about power morcellation in hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Safety warnings about power morcellation in 2014 considerably changed hysterectomy practice, especially for laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy that typically requires morcellation to remove the corpus uteri while preserving the cervix. Hospitals might vary in how they respond to safety warnings and altered hysterectomy procedures to avoid use of power morcellation. However, there has been little data on how hospitals differ in their practice changes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine whether hospitals varied in their use of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy after safety warnings about power morcellation and compare the risk of surgical complications at hospitals that had different response trajectories in use of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of data from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System and the State Inpatient Databases and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases from 14 other states. We identified women aged ≥18 years undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications in the hospital inpatient and outpatient settings from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2015. We calculated a risk-adjusted utilization rate of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy for each hospital in each calendar quarter after accounting for patient clinical risk factors. Applying a growth mixture modeling approach, we identified distinct groups of hospitals that exhibited different trajectories of using laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy over time. Within each trajectory group, we compared patients' risk of surgical complications in the prewarning (2013Q4-2014Q1), transition (2014Q2-2014Q4), and postwarning (2015Q1-2015Q3) period using multivariable regressions. RESULTS: Among 212,146 women undergoing benign hysterectomy at 511 hospitals, the use of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy decreased from 15.1% in 2013Q4 to 6.2% in 2015Q3. The use of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy at these 511 hospitals exhibited 4 distinct trajectory patterns: persistent low use (mean risk-adjusted utilization rate of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy changed from 2.8% in 2013Q4 to 0.6% in 2015Q3), decreased medium use (17.0% to 6.9%), decreased high use (51.4% to 24.2%), and rapid abandonment (30.5% to 0.8%). In the meantime, use of open abdominal hysterectomy increased by 2.1, 4.1, 7.8, and 11.8 percentage points between the prewarning and postwarning periods in these 4 trajectory groups, respectively. Compared with the prewarning period, the risk of major complications in the postwarning period decreased among patients at "persistent low use" hospitals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.94). In contrast, the risk of major complications increased among patients at "rapid abandonment" hospitals (adjusted odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.98), and the risk of minor complications increased among patients at "decreased high use" hospitals (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.72). CONCLUSION: Hospitals varied in their use of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy after safety warnings about power morcellation. Complication risk increased at hospitals that shifted considerably toward open abdominal hysterectomy.

What Are the Cost Drivers for the Major Bowel Bundled Payment Care Improvement Initiative?

BACKGROUND: The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative links payments for service beneficiaries during an episode of care (limited to 90 days from index surgery discharge). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify drivers of costs/payments for the major bowel Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative. DESIGN: Discharges from the Medicare Standard Analytic Files of hospitals participating in the major bowel bundle of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative were analyzed. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at 4 tertiary care centers. PATIENTS: All patients in diagnostic related groups of 329, 330, or 331 treated at eligible facilities between September 1, 2012, and September 30, 2014, were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We calculated all costs/payments for the bundled period, that is, 3 days before surgery, the index hospitalization including surgery, and the 90-day postoperative period. We then determined costs for laparoscopic versus open procedures using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, procedure codes for each of the diagnostic related groups, as well as in aggregate. Last, we calculated differential impact of cost drivers on overall total episode costs. RESULTS: In the cohort of hospitals participating in the major bowel Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative, open procedures ($45,073) cost 1.6 times more than laparoscopic. For the lowest complexity diagnostic related group (331), performance of the procedure with open techniques was the largest total episode cost driver, because use of postdischarge services remained low. In the highest complexity diagnostic related group (329), readmission costs, skilled nursing facilities costs, and home health services costs were the greatest cost drivers after hospital services. LIMITATIONS: The analyses are limited by the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that efforts to safely perform open procedures with laparoscopic techniques would be most effective in reducing costs for lower complexity diagnostic related groups, whereas efforts to impact readmission and postdischarge service use would be most impactful for the higher complexity diagnostic related groups. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B420. ¿CUÁLES SON LOS FACTORES DETERMINANTES DE LOS COSTOS DE LA INICIATIVA DE MEJORA DE LA ATENCIÓN DE PAGOS COMBINADOS PARA EL INTESTINO MAYOR?: La iniciativa de pagos combinados para la mejora de la atención (BPCI) vincula los pagos para los beneficiarios del servicio durante un episodio de atención (limitado a 90 días desde el alta hospitalaria de la cirugía índice).Identificar los factores determinantes de los costos / pagos de la iniciativa BPCI intestinal mayor.Análisis de altas de los Archivos Analíticos Estándar de Medicare de los hospitales que participan en el paquete intestinal principal de la iniciativa BPCI.Todos los pacientes en Grupos Relacionados con el Diagnóstico (GRD) de 329, 330 o 331 tratados en instalaciones elegibles desde el 1 de Septiembre de 2012 hasta el 30 de Septiembre de 2014.Calculamos todos los costos / pagos para el período combinado, es decir, tres días antes de la cirugía, el índice de hospitalización incluida la cirugía y el período posoperatorio de 90 días. Luego, determinamos los costos de los procedimientos laparoscópicos versus abiertos utilizando códigos de procedimiento ICD-9 para cada uno de los GRD, así como en conjunto. Por último, calculamos el impacto diferencial de los generadores de costos sobre los costos totales del episodio.En la cohorte de hospitales que participan en la iniciativa BPCI del intestino principal, los procedimientos abiertos ($ 45.073) cuestan 1,6 veces más que los laparoscópicos. Para el GRD de menor complejidad (331), la realización del procedimiento con técnicas abiertas fue el mayor factor de costo total del episodio, ya que la utilización de los servicios posteriores al alta se mantuvo baja. En el GRD de mayor complejidad (329), los costos de readmisión, los costos de las instalaciones de enfermería especializada y los costos de los servicios de salud en el hogar fueron los mayores factores de costo después de los servicios hospitalarios.Los análisis están limitados por la naturaleza retrospectiva del estudio.Estos resultados indican que los esfuerzos para realizar procedimientos abiertos de manera segura con técnicas laparoscópicas serían más efectivos para reducir los costos de los GRD de menor complejidad, mientras que los esfuerzos para impactar la readmisión y la utilización del servicio posterior al alta serían más impactantes para los GRD de mayor complejidad. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B420.

Development and validation of a recommended checklist for assessment of surgical videos quality: the LAParoscopic surgery Video Educational GuidelineS (LAP-VEGaS) video assessment tool.

INTRODUCTION: There has been a constant increase in the number of published surgical videos with preference for open-access sources, but the proportion of videos undergoing peer-review prior to publication has markedly decreased, raising questions over quality of the educational content presented. The aim of this study was the development and validation of a standard framework for the appraisal of surgical videos submitted for presentation and publication, the LAParoscopic surgery Video Educational GuidelineS (LAP-VEGaS) video assessment tool. METHODS: An international committee identified items for inclusion in the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool and finalised the marking score utilising Delphi methodology. The tool was finally validated by anonymous evaluation of selected videos by a group of validators not involved in the tool development. RESULTS: 9 items were included in the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool, with every item scoring from 0 (item not presented in the video) to 2 (item extensively presented in the video), with a total marking score ranging from 0 to 18. The LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool resulted highly accurate in identifying and selecting videos for acceptance for conference presentation and publication, with high level of internal consistency and generalisability. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that peer review in adherence to the LAP-VEGaS video assessment tool could enhance the overall quality of published video outputs.

Correlation of surgeon radiology assessment with laparoscopic disease site scoring in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Radiographic triage measures in patients with new advanced ovarian cancer have yielded inconsistent results. OBJECTIVE: To determine the correlation between surgeon radiology assessment and laparoscopic scoring by disease sites in patients with newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer. METHODS: Fourteen gynecologic oncology surgeons from a single institution performed a blinded review of pre-operative contrast-enhanced CT imaging from patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Each of the patients had also undergone laparoscopic scoring assessment, between April 2013 and December 2017, to determine primary resectability using the validated Fagotti scoring method, and assigned a predictive index value score. Surgeons were asked to provide expected predictive index value scores based on their blinded review of the antecedent CT imaging. Linear mixed models were conducted to calculate the correlation between radiologic and laparoscopic score for surgeons individually, and as a group. Once the model was fit, the inter-class correlation and 95% CI were calculated. RESULTS: Radiology review was performed on 20 patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer who underwent laparoscopic scoring assessment. Surgeon faculty rank included assistant professor (n=5), associate professor (p=4), and professor (n=5). The kappa inter-rater agreement was -0.017 (95% CI -0.023 to -0.005), indicating low inter-rater agreement between radiology review and actual laparoscopic score. The inter-class correlation in this model was 0.06 (0.02-0.21), indicating that surgeons do not score the same across all the images. When using a clinical cut-off point for the predictive index value of 8, the probability of agreement between radiology and actual laparoscopic score was 0.56 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.73). Examination of disease site sub-scales showed that the probability of agreement was as follows: peritoneum 0.57 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.62), diaphragm 0.54 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.60), mesentery 0.51 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.57), omentum 0.61 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.67), bowel 0.54 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64), stomach 0.71 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.76), and liver 0.36 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.42). The number of laparoscopic scoring cases, tumor reductive surgery cases, or faculty rank was not significantly associated with overall or sub-scale agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon radiology review did not correlate highly with actual laparoscopic scoring assessment findings in patients with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Our study highlights the limited accuracy of surgeon radiographic assessment to determine resectability.

The Fun Factor: Does Serious Gaming Affect the Volume of Voluntary Laparoscopic Skills Training?

BACKGROUND: The availability of validated laparoscopic simulators has not resulted in sustainable high-volume training. We investigated whether the validated laparoscopic serious game Underground would increase voluntary training by residents. We hypothesized that by removing intrinsic barriers and extrinsic barriers, residents would spend more time on voluntary training with Underground compared to voluntary training with traditional simulators. METHODS: After 1 year, we compared amount of voluntary time spent on playing Underground to time spent on all other laparoscopic training modalities and to time spent on performing laparoscopic procedures in the OR for all surgical residents. These data were compared to resident' time spent on laparoscopic activities over the prior year before the introduction of Underground. RESULTS: From March 2016 until March 2017, 63 residents spent on average 20 min on voluntary serious gaming, 17 min on voluntary simulator training, 2 h and 44 min on mandatory laparoscopic training courses, and 14 h and 49 min on laparoscopic procedures in the OR. Voluntary activities represented 3% of laparoscopic training activities which was similar in the prior year wherein fifty residents spent on average 33 min on voluntary simulator training, 3 h and 28 min on mandatory laparoscopic training courses, and 11 h and 19 min on laparoscopic procedures. CONCLUSION: Serious gaming has not increased total voluntary training volume. Underground did not mitigate intrinsic and extrinsic barriers to voluntary training. Mandatory, scheduled training courses remain needed. Serious gaming is flexible and affordable and could be an important part of such training courses.

Outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted fetoscopic laser photocoagulation for twin-twin transfusion syndrome: An established alternative for inaccessible anterior placenta.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate laparoscopy-assisted fetoscopic laser photocoagulation (FLPC) of placental anastomoses in the treatment of twin-to-twin-transfusion syndrome (TTTS). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study analyzing pregnancies complicated by TTTS who underwent FLPC in a single university-affiliated tertiary medical-center. Outcomes were compared between patients who received laparoscopy-assisted FLPC (study group) and patients who underwent the conventional FLPC technique (control group). Baseline characteristics, sonographic findings, procedure details, and neonatal outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: The cohort included 278 women with 31 in the study group and 247 in the control group. Sonographic parameters, including fetal biometry and TTTS stage, were comparable between study groups. Gestational age at delivery did not differ between the groups (29.22 ± 4.55 weeks in the study group vs. 30.62 ± 4.3 weeks in the control group, p = 0.09). There were no differences in neonatal survival rates at birth and at 30 days between both groups. A subanalysis comparing the laparoscopy-assisted group to only those patients with anterior placenta in the control group, showed a lower rate of incomplete Solomonization in the laparoscopy-assisted study group (3.4% vs. 33%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy-assisted FLPC is a reasonable and safe option that may be offered in cases of FLPC where an anterior placenta restricts adequate surgical access.

Demonstration of Safe Entry Techniques for Laparoscopy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate different techniques, and detail the considerations for obtaining primary laparoscopic access in gynecologic surgery. DESIGN: Video demonstration of the techniques with narrated discussion of each method. SETTING: The methods for primary entry in laparoscopy vary by location and technique [1,2]. There are inherent risks with any mode of primary entry, and the risks are also specific to each technique [3-6]. The choice for primary entry depends on the patient's anatomy, surgical history, pathology, and surgeon preference [1,2]. INTERVENTIONS: This video reviews considerations for choosing the safest entry point and tips for proper entry technique [4,7-10]. The entry sites reviewed include the umbilicus, left upper quadrant, right upper quadrant, and supraumbilical [11]. The entry technique can be either open (Hasson), closed (Veress), or by direct laparoscopic visualization [9,10,12-14]. CONCLUSION: No single laparoscopic entry technique is superior [3]. The safest and most successful entry method will vary by case characteristics and surgeon training.

Optimal Isthmocele Management: Hysteroscopic, Laparoscopic, or Combination.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature on the hysteroscopic and laparoscopic repair of isthmocele. DATA SOURCES: A thorough search of the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed. (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020190668). METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Studies from the last 20 years that addressed isthmocele repair were collected. Both authors screened for study eligibility and extracted data. All prospective and retrospective studies of more than 10 women were included. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: The initial search identified 666 articles (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart) (see Supplemental Fig.). We excluded duplicates, case reports, reviews, video articles, and technique articles. We also excluded studies describing only laparotomy or vaginal repair as these were not in the scope of this review. A total of 31 articles met the inclusion criteria, 21 for hysteroscopic resection and 13 for laparoscopic or combined repair (4 articles tested both modalities and appear in both Tables 1 and 2).For abnormal uterine bleeding, hysteroscopic remodeling relived symptoms in 60% to 100% of cases and laparoscopy in 78% to 94%. Secondary infertility was not evaluated in all studies. After hysteroscopic and laparoscopic treatment, 46% to 100% and 37.5% to 90% of those who wished to conceive became pregnant, after the procedure, respectively. Pain and dysmenorrhea seem to be uncommon. All studies that tested improvement of pain had fewer than 10 women. However, between 66% and 100% of women who complain of pain or dysmenorrhea will note a marked improvement to full resolution. CONCLUSION: Patients with an isthmocele or cesarean scar defect are usually asymptomatic. For symptomatic women, a repair is a valid option. For those with residual myometrial thickness >2 to 3 mm, hysteroscopic remodeling is the modality of choice with an improvement in abnormal uterine bleeding, secondary infertility, and pain. Women with a residual myometrial thickness <2- to 3-mm laparoscopic repair with simultaneous hysteroscopic guidance show similar results. Because available data are limited, no cutoff for the correct choice between hysteroscopy and laparoscopy can be concluded. We recommend 2.5 mm as the cutoff value based on common practice and expert opinion, although no significance between hysteroscopic and laparoscopic treatment was shown.

Enhanced Recovery and Surgical Optimization Protocol for Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery: An AAGL White Paper.

This is the first Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guideline dedicated to standardizing and optimizing perioperative care for women undergoing minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. The guideline was rigorously formulated by an American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists Task Force of US and Canadian gynecologic surgeons with special interest and experience in adapting ERAS practices for patients requiring minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. It builds on the 2016 ERAS Society recommendations for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncologic surgery by serving as a more comprehensive reference for minimally invasive endoscopic and vaginal surgery for both benign and malignant gynecologic conditions. For example, the section on preoperative optimization provides more specific recommendations derived from the ambulatory surgery and anesthesia literature for the management of anemia, hyperglycemia, and obstructive sleep apnea. Recommendations pertaining to multimodal analgesia account for the recent Food and Drug Administration warnings about respiratory depression from gabapentinoids. The guideline focuses on workflows important to high-value care in minimally invasive surgery, such as same-day discharge, and tackles controversial issues in minimally invasive surgery, such as thromboprophylaxis. In these ways, the guideline supports the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists and our collective mission to elevate the quality and safety of healthcare for women through excellence in clinical practice.

Guideline No. 412: Laparoscopic Entry for Gynaecological Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits and risks of laparoscopic surgery and provide clinical direction on entry techniques, technologies, and their associated complications in gynaecological surgery. TARGET POPULATION: All patients, including pregnant women and women with obesity, undergoing laparoscopic surgery for various gynaecological indications. OPTIONS: The laparoscopic entry techniques and technologies reviewed in formulating this guideline included the closed (Veress needle-pneumoperitoneum-trocar) technique, direct trocar insertion, open (Hasson) technique, visual entry systems, and disposable shielded and radially expanding trocars. OUTCOMES: Implementation of this guideline should optimize decision-making in the selection of entry technique for laparoscopic surgery. EVIDENCE: We searched English-language articles from September 2005 to December 2019 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, and Cochrane Library using the following MeSH search terms alone or in combination: laparoscopic entry, laparoscopy access, pneumoperitoneum, Veress needle, open (Hasson), direct trocar, visual entry, shielded trocars, radially expanded trocars, and laparoscopic complications. VALIDATION METHODS: The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care approach (Appendix A). INTENDED AUDIENCE: Surgeons performing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS.

Accreditation as a qualified surgeon improves surgical outcomes in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.

PURPOSE: The Endoscopic Surgical Skill Quantification System for qualified surgeons (QSs) was introduced in Japan to improve surgical outcomes. This study reviewed the surgical outcomes after initial experience performing laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) and evaluated the improvement in surgical outcomes following accreditation as a QS. METHODS: Eighty-seven consecutive patients who underwent LDG for gastric cancer by a single surgeon were enrolled in this study. The cumulative sum method was used to analyze the learning curve for LDG. The surgical outcomes were evaluated according to the two phases of the learning curve (learning period vs. mastery period) and accreditation (non-QS period vs. QS period). RESULTS: The learning period for LDG was 48 cases. Accreditation was approved at the 67th case. The operation time and estimated blood loss were significantly reduced in the QS period compared to the non-QS period (230 vs. 270 min, p < 0.001; 20.5 vs. 59.8 ml, p = 0.024, respectively). Furthermore, the major complication rate was significantly lower in the QS period than in the non-QS period (0 vs. 10.6%, p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Experience performing approximately 50 cases is required to reach proficiency in LDG. After receiving accreditation as a QS, the surgical outcomes, including the complication rate, were improved.

System Factors Affecting Intraoperative Risk and Resilience: Applying a Novel Integrated Approach to Study Surgical Performance and Patient Safety.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and categorize system factors in complex laparoscopic surgery that have the potential to either threaten patient safety or support system resilience. BACKGROUND: The operating room is a uniquely complex sociotechnical work system wherein surgical successes prevail despite pervasive safety threats. Holistically characterizing intraoperative factors that thus support system resilience in addition to those that threaten patient safety using contextual methodologies is critical for optimizing surgical safety overall. METHOD: In this prospective descriptive interdisciplinary study, 19 audio/video recordings of complex laparoscopic general surgical procedures were directly observed and transcribed. Using a qualitative systems-based approach, intraoperative human factors with the potential to impact patient safety, either as a safety threat or as a support for resilience, were identified. Adverse events were further assessed for shared threats and supports. Data collection was guided by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 work system model. RESULTS: A total of 1083 relevant observations were made over 39.8 hours of operative time, enabling the identification of 79 distinct safety threats and 67 resilience supports within the surgical system. Safety threats associated with the physical environment, tasks, organization, and equipment were prevalent and observed in equal measure, whereas supports for resilience were predominantly attributed to clinician behaviors, including proactive team management and skills coaching. Two subclinical adverse events were identified; shared safety threats included suboptimal technology design, whereas shared resilience supports included calm clinician behavior and redundant intraoperative resourcing. CONCLUSIONS: Safety threats and resilience supports were found to be systematic in the surgical setting. Identified safety threats should be prioritized for remediation, and clinician behaviors that contribute to fostering resilience should be valued and protected.

First-year Analysis of the Operating Room Black Box Study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize intraoperative errors, events, and distractions, and measure technical skills of surgeons in minimally invasive surgery practice. BACKGROUND: Adverse events in the operating room (OR) are common contributors of morbidity and mortality in surgical patients. Adverse events often occur due to deviations in performance and environmental factors. Although comprehensive intraoperative data analysis and transparent disclosure have been advocated to better understand how to improve surgical safety, they have rarely been done. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study in 132 consecutive patients undergoing elective laparoscopic general surgery at an academic hospital during the first year after the definite implementation of a multiport data capture system called the OR Black Box to identify intraoperative errors, events, and distractions. Expert analysts characterized intraoperative distractions, errors, and events, and measured trainee involvement as main operator. Technical skills were compared, crude and risk-adjusted, among the attending surgeon and trainees. RESULTS: Auditory distractions occurred a median of 138 times per case [interquartile range (IQR) 96-190]. At least 1 cognitive distraction appeared in 84 cases (64%). Medians of 20 errors (IQR 14-36) and 8 events (IQR 4-12) were identified per case. Both errors and events occurred often in dissection and reconstruction phases of operation. Technical skills of residents were lower than those of the attending surgeon (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: During elective laparoscopic operations, frequent intraoperative errors and events, variation in surgeons' technical skills, and a high amount of environmental distractions were identified using the OR Black Box.

Risk-adjusted benchmarks in laparoscopic liver surgery in a national cohort.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the best achievable outcomes in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) after risk adjustment based on surgical technical difficulty using a national registry. METHODS: LLRs registered in the Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery registry from November 2014 to March 2018 were considered. Benchmarks were calculated according to the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC™). LLRs at each centre were divided into three clusters (groups I, II and III) based on the Kawaguchi classification. ABCs for overall and major morbidity were calculated in each cluster. Multivariable analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for overall and major morbidity. Significant variables were used in further risk adjustment. RESULTS: A total of 1752 of 2263 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 1096 (62·6 per cent) in group I, 435 (24·8 per cent) in group II and 221 (12·6 per cent) in group III. The ABCs for overall morbidity (7·8, 14·2 and 26·4 per cent for grades I, II and II respectively) and major morbidity (1·4, 2·2 and 5·7 per cent) increased with the difficulty of LLR. Multivariable analysis showed an increased risk of overall morbidity associated with multiple LLRs (odds ratio (OR) 1·35), simultaneous intestinal resection (OR 3·76) and cirrhosis (OR 1·83), and an increased risk of major morbidity with intestinal resection (OR 4·61). ABCs for overall and major morbidity were 14·4 and 3·2 per cent respectively for multiple LLRs, 30 and 11·1 per cent for intestinal resection, and 14·9 and 4·8 per cent for cirrhosis. CONCLUSION: Overall morbidity benchmarks for LLR ranged from 7·8 to 26·4 per cent, and those for major morbidity from 1·4 to 5·7 per cent, depending on complexity. Benchmark values should be adjusted according to multiple LLRs or simultaneous intestinal resection and cirrhosis.

ANTECEDENTES: Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar los mejores resultados que se pueden conseguir en la resección hepática laparoscópica (laparoscopic liver resection, LLR) después del ajuste por riesgos basado en la dificultad de la técnica quirúrgica utilizando un registro nacional. MÉTODOS: Se consideraron las LLRs incluidas en el Registro del Grupo Italiano de Cirugía Hepática Mínimamente Invasiva desde 11/2014 a 03/2018. Los resultados de referencia (benchmarks) se calcularon de acuerdo con el Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC™). Las LLRs de cada uno de los centros se dividieron en 3 grupos (Grupo I, II y III) en base a la clasificación de Kawaguchi. Se calculó el ABC de la morbilidad global y de la morbilidad mayor para cada grupo. Se realizó un análisis multivariable para identificar los factores independientes de riesgos para la morbilidad global y morbilidad mayor. Se utilizaron variables significativas para realizar ajustes de riesgo adicionales. RESULTADOS: Un total de 1.752 pacientes de los 2.263 cumplían los criterios de inclusión, de los cuales 1.096 (62,6%) se incluyeron en el Grupo I, 435 (24,8%) en el Grupo II y 221 (12,6%) en el Grupo III. El ABC de la morbilidad global (7,8%, 14,2%, 26,4%) y de la morbilidad mayor (1,4%, 2,2%, 5,7%) aumentó del Grupo I al Grupo III. El análisis multivariable mostró un incremento del riesgo para la morbilidad global asociada con múltiples LLRs (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 1,349), resección intestinal simultánea (OR 3,760) y cirrosis (OR 1,825), y para la morbilidad mayor con la resección intestinal (OR 4,606). Los ABC de la morbilidad global y morbilidad mayor fueron 14,4% y 3,2% para las LLR múltiples, 30% y 11% para la resección intestinal, y 14,9% y 4,8% para la cirrosis, respectivamente. CONCLUSIÓN: Los resultados de referencia (benchmark) para la morbilidad global y morbilidad mayor en la LLR variaron entre un 8% y un 26% y entre un 1,4% y un 5,7%, dependiendo de la complejidad. Los valores de referencia deberían ajustarse de acuerdo con la práctica de LLRs múltiples o resección intestinal simultánea y cirrosis.

The Evolution of Nonoperative Management of Abdominal Gunshot Wounds in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Surgical exploration for gunshot wounds to the abdomen has been a surgical standard for the greater part of the past century. Recently, nonoperative management (NOM) has been deemed as a safe option for abdominal gunshot wounds (AGWs). The aim of this analysis was to review the utilization of NOM and mortality after AGWs. METHODS: We performed a 2010-2014 retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality and Improvement Program. We included all adult (aged 18 and older) patients with AGWs. NOM was defined as nonsurgical intervention within the first 6 h. Outcome measures were trends of utilization of NOM and mortality. Cochrane-Armitage trend analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 808,272 trauma patients were identified, and 16,866 patients with AGWs were included. During the study period, the incidence of AGWs increased, whereas the proportion of bowel injury (P = 0.75) and solid organ injury (P = 0.44) did not change. The NOM rate of AGW increased (2010: 19.5% versus 2014: 27%, P < 0.001). This was accompanied by a decrease in mortality rate (11% versus 9.4%, P = 0.01). Likewise, there was an increase in the use of angiography (7.5% versus 27%, P < 0.001) and laparoscopy (0.9% versus 2.6%, P < 0.001). Overall, 9.8% of the patients had failed NOM. There was no difference in mortality in patients who were managed successfully or failed NOM (5% versus 4.6%, P = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: NOM of AGW is more prevalent and is associated with a decrease in mortality rate. Selective NOM may be practiced safely after AGWs.