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.

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.

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.

Severity Grading Systems for Intraoperative Adverse Events. A Systematic Review of the Literature and Citation Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The accurate assessment and grading of adverse events (AE) is essential to ensure comparisons between surgical procedures and outcomes. The current lack of a standardized severity grading system may limit our understanding of the true morbidity attributed to AEs in surgery. The aim of this study is to review the prevalence in which intraoperative adverse event (iAE) severity grading systems are used in the literature, evaluate the strengths and limitations of these systems, and appraise their applicability in clinical studies. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were queried to yield all clinical studies reporting the proposal and/or the validation of iAE severity grading systems. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched separately to identify the articles citing the systems to grade iAEs identified in the first search. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2957 studies, with 7 studies considered for the qualitative synthesis. Five studies considered only surgical/interventional iAEs, while 2 considered both surgical/interventional and anesthesiologic iAEs. Two included studies validated the iAE severity grading system prospectively. A total of 357 citations were retrieved, with an overall self/nonself-citation ratio of 0.17 (53/304). The majority of citing articles were clinical studies (44.1%). The average number of citations per year was 6.7 citations for each classification/severity system, with only 2.05 citations/year for clinical studies. Of the 158 clinical studies citing the severity grading systems, only 90 (56.9%) used them to grade the iAEs. The appraisal of applicability (mean%/median%) was below the 70% threshold in 3 domains: stakeholder involvement (46/47), clarity of presentation (65/67), and applicability (57/56). CONCLUSION: Seven severity grading systems for iAEs have been published in the last decade. Despite the importance of collecting and grading the iAEs, these systems are poorly adopted, with only a few studies per year using them. A uniform globally implemented severity grading system is needed to produce comparable data across studies and develop strategies to decrease iAEs, further improving patient safety.

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

AIM: The choice of whether to perform protective ileostomy (PI) after anterior resection (AR) is mainly guided by risk factors (RFs) responsible for the development of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, clear guidelines about PI creation are still lacking in the literature and this is often decided according to the surgeon's preferences, experiences or feelings. This qualitative study aims to investigate, by an open-ended question survey, the individual surgeon's decision-making process regarding PI creation after elective AR. METHOD: Fifty four colorectal surgeons took part in an electronic survey to answer the questions and describe what usually led their decision to perform PI. A content analysis was used to code the answers. To classify answers, five dichotomous categories (In favour/Against PI, Listed/Unlisted RFs, Typical/Atypical, Emotions/Non-emotions, Personal experience/No personal experience) have been developed. RESULTS: Overall, 76% of surgeons were in favour of PI creation and 88% considered listed RFs in the question of whether to perform PI. Atypical answers were reported in 10% of cases. Emotions and personal experience influenced surgeons' decision-making process in 22% and 49% of cases, respectively. The most frequently considered RFs were the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (96%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (88%), a positive intraoperative leak test (65%), blood loss (37%) and immunosuppression therapy (35%). CONCLUSION: The indications to perform PI following rectal cancer surgery lack standardization and evidence-based guidelines are required to inform practice. Until then, expert opinion can be helpful to assist the decision-making process in patients who have undergone AR for adenocarcinoma.

Surgical education in the post-COVID era: an EAES DELPHI-study.

BACKGROUNDS: To date, it is unclear what the educational response to the restrictions on minimally invasive surgery imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic have been, and how MIS-surgeons see the post-pandemic future of surgical education. Using a modified Delphi-methodology, this study aims to assess the effects of COVID on MIS-training and to develop a consensus on the educational response to the pandemic. METHODS: A three-part Delphi study was performed among the membership of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). The first survey aimed to survey participants on the educational response in four educational components: training in the operating room (OR), wet lab and dry lab training, assessment and accreditation, and use of digital resources. The second and third survey aimed to formulate and achieve consensus on statements on, and resources in, response to the pandemic and in post-pandemic MIS surgery. RESULTS: Over 247 EAES members participated in the three rounds of this Delphi survey. MIS-training decreased by 35.6-55.6%, alternatives were introduced in 14.7-32.2% of respondents, and these alternatives compensated for 32.2-43.2% of missed training. OR-training and assessments were most often affected due to the cancellation of elective cases (80.7%, and 73.8% affected, respectively). Consensus was achieved on 13 statements. Although digital resources were deemed valuable alternatives for OR-training and skills assessments, face-to-face resources were preferred. Videos and hands-on training-wet labs, dry labs, and virtual reality (VR) simulation-were the best appreciated resources. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has severely affected surgical training opportunities for minimally invasive surgery. Face-to-face training remains the preferred training method, although digital and remote training resources are believed to be valuable additions to the training palette. Organizations such as the EAES are encouraged to support surgical educators in implementing these resources. Insights from this Delphi can guide (inter)national governing training bodies and hospitals in shaping surgical resident curricula in post pandemic times.

Methods of quality assurance in multicenter trials in laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Operative performance may affect the internal and external validity of randomized trials. The aim of this study was to review the use of surgical quality assurance mechanisms of published trials on laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery, with the objective to appraise their internal (research quality) and external validity (applicability to the clinical setting). METHODS: Building upon a previous systematic review and network meta-analysis published by the authors, Medline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and OpenGrey databases were searched for randomized control trials comparing different methods of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery for the management of gastroesophageal disease. Quality assurance in individual studies was appraised using a specified framework addressing surgeon accreditation, procedure standardization, and performance monitoring. RESULTS: In total, 2276 articles were screened to obtain 43 publications reporting 29 randomized controlled trials. Twenty-five out of 43 (58.1%) articles reported the number of participating centers and surgeons involved. Additionally, only 21/43 (48.8%) of articles reported consistent use of a bougie, while 23/43 (53.5%) of articles reported consistent division of the short gastric arteries during fundoplication. Surgical experience and credentials were stated in half of the studies. Standardization of the technique was reported in almost 70% of cases, whereas operative notes or video was submitted in one fourth of the studies. Monitoring of the operative performance during the trial was not documented in most of the trials (62%). CONCLUSION: Surgical quality assurance in randomized trials on laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery is insufficient, which does not allow appraisal of the internal and external validity of this research. With improved reporting, trials assessing the use of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery will enable surgeons to make informed treatment decisions to enhance patient care in the surgical management of GERD.

Evaluation of a Microsurgery Training Curriculum.

BACKGROUND: Microsurgery is one of the most challenging areas of surgery with a steep learning curve. To address this educational need, microsurgery curricula have been developed and validated, with the majority focus on technical skills only. The aim of this study was to report on the evaluation of a well-established curriculum using the Kirkpatrick model. METHODS: A training curriculum was delivered over 5 days between 2017 and 2020 focusing on (1) microscopic field manipulation, (2) knot tying, nondominant hand usage, (3) 3-D models/anastomosis, and (4) tissue experience. The Kirkpatrick model was applied to evaluate the curriculum at four levels: (1) participants' feedback (2) skills development using a validated, objective assessment tool (Global Assessment Score form) and CUSUM charts were constructed to model proficiency gain (3) and (4) assessing skill retention/long-term impact. RESULTS: In total, 155 participants undertook the curriculum, totaling 5,425 hours of training. More than 75% of students reported the course as excellent, with the remaining voting for "good." All participants agreed that the curriculum met expectations and would recommend it. Significant improvement in anastomosis attainment scores between days 1 and 3 (median score 4) and days 4 and 5 (median score 5) (W = 494.5, p = 0.00170). The frequency of errors reduced with successive attempts (chi square = 9.81, p = 0.00174). The steepest learning curve was in anastomosis and patency domains, requiring 11 attempts on average to reach proficiency. In total, 88.5% survey respondents could apply the skills learnt and 76.9% applied the skills learnt within 6 months. Key areas of improvement were identified from this evaluation, and actions to address them were implemented in the following programs. CONCLUSION: Robust evaluation of curriculum can be applied to microsurgery training demonstrating its efficacy in reducing surgical errors with an improvement in overall technical skills that can extend to impact clinical practice. It allows the identification of areas of improvement, driving the refinement of training programs.

Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Outcomes Improved After National Training Program (LAPCO) for Specialists in England.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of The National Training Program for Lapco on the rate of laparoscopic surgery and clinical outcomes of cases performed by Lapco surgeons after completion of training. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lapco provided competency-based supervised clinical training for specialist colorectal surgeons in England. METHODS: We compared the rate of laparoscopic surgery, mortality, and morbidity for colorectal cancer resections by Lapco delegates and non-Lapco surgeons in 3-year periods preceding and following Lapco using difference in differences analysis. The changes in the rate of post-Lapco laparoscopic surgery with the Lapco sign-off competency assessment and in-training global assessment scores were examined using risk-adjusted cumulative sum to determine their predictive clinical validity with predefined competent scores of 3 and 5 respectively. RESULTS: One hundred eight Lapco delegates performed 4586 elective colo-rectal resections pre-Lapco and 5115 post-Lapco while non-Lapco surgeons performed 72,930 matched cases. Lapco delegates had a 37.8% increase in laparoscopic surgery which was greater than non-Lapco surgeons by 20.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 18.5-23.3, P < 0.001) with a relative decrease in 30-day mortality by -1.6% (95% CI, -3.4 to -0.2, P = 0.039) and 90-day mortality by -2.3% (95% CI, -4.3 to -0.4, P = 0.018). The change point of risk-adjusted cumulative sum was 3.12 for competency assessment tool and 4.74 for global assessment score whereas laparoscopic rate increased from 44% to 66% and 40% to 56%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lapco increased the rate of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery and reduced mortality and morbidity in England. In-training competency assessment tools predicted clinical performance after training.

Environmental sustainability in robotic and laparoscopic surgery: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques are considered the gold standard of surgical interventions, but they have a high environmental cost. With global temperatures rising and unmet surgical needs persisting, this review investigates the carbon and material footprint of MIS and summarizes strategies to make MIS greener. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases were interrogated between 1974 and July 2021. The search strategy encompassed surgical setting, waste, carbon footprint, environmental sustainability, and MIS. Two investigators independently performed abstract/full-text reviews. An analysis of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted per ton of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) or waste produced was generated. RESULTS: From the 2456 abstracts identified, 16 studies were selected reporting on 5203 MIS procedures. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions ranged from 6 kg to 814 kg CO2e per case. Carbon footprint hotspots included production of disposables and anaesthetics. The material footprint of MIS ranged from 0.25 kg to 14.3 kg per case. Waste-reduction strategies included repackaging disposables, limiting open and unused instruments, and educational interventions. Robotic procedures result in 43.5 per cent higher GHG emissions, 24 per cent higher waste production, fewer DALYs averted per ton of CO2, and less waste than laparoscopic alternatives. CONCLUSION: The increased environmental impact of robotic surgery may not sufficiently offset the clinical benefit. Utilizing alternative surgical approaches, reusable equipment, repackaging, surgeon preference cards, and increasing staff awareness on open and unused equipment and desflurane avoidance can reduce GHG emissions and waste.

Consensus statements on complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer-technical steps and training implications.

BACKGROUND: CME is a radical resection for colon cancer, but the procedure is technically demanding with significant variation in its practice. A standardised approach to the optimal technique and training is, therefore, desirable to minimise technical hazards and facilitate safe dissemination. The aim is to develop an expert consensus on the optimal technique for Complete Mesocolic Excision (CME) for right-sided and transverse colon cancer to guide safe implementation and training pathways. METHODS: Guidance was developed following a modified Delphi process to draw consensus from 55 international experts in CME and surgical education representing 18 countries. Domain topics were formulated and subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of CME practice. A three-round Delphi voting on 25 statements based on the specific questions and 70% agreement was considered as consensus. RESULTS: Twenty-three recommendations for CME procedure were agreed on, describing the technique and optimal training pathway. CME is recommended as the standard of care resection for locally advanced colon cancer. The essential components are central vascular ligation, exposure of the superior mesenteric vein and excision of an intact mesocolon. Key anatomical landmarks to perform a safe CME dissection include identification of the ileocolic pedicle, superior mesenteric vein and root of the mesocolon. A proficiency-based multimodal training curriculum for CME was proposed including a formal proctorship programme. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on standardisation of technique and training framework for complete mesocolic excision was agreed upon by a panel of experts to guide current practice and provide a quality control framework for future studies.

The development of visuospatial abilities and their impact on laparoscopic skill acquisition: a clinical longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how visuospatial abilities develop and influence intraoperative laparoscopic performance during surgical residency training programmes. BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery is a challenging technique to acquire and master. Visuospatial ability is an important attribute but most prior research have predominantly explored the influence of visuospatial abilities in lab-based settings and/or among inexperienced surgeons. Little is known about the impact of visuospatial profiles on actual laparoscopic performance and its role in shaping competency. METHOD: A longitudinal observational cohort study using a pair-matched design over 27 months. At baseline, visuospatial profiles of 43 laparoscopic surgeons of all expertise levels and 19 control subjects were compared. The development of visuospatial abilities and their association with intraoperative performance of 18 residency surgeons were monitored during the course of their laparoscopic training. RESULTS: Laparoscopic surgeons significantly outperformed the control group on the measure of spatial visualisation (U = 273.0, p = 0.03, η2 = 0.3). Spatial visualisation was found to be a significant predictor of laparoscopic expertise (R2 = 0.70, F (1.60) = 6.788, p = 0.01) and improved with laparoscopic training (B = 4.01, SE = 1.83, p = 0.02, 95% CI [0.40, 7.63]). From month 6 to 18, a strong positive correlation between spatial visualisation and intraoperative depth perception (r = 0.67, p < 0.01), bimanual dexterity (r = 0.60, p < 0.01), autonomy (r = 0.78, p < 0.01) and the total score (r = 0.70, p < 0.01) were observed but a strong relationship remained only with autonomy (r = 0.89, p < 0.01) and total score (r = 0.80, p < 0.01) at 18 months. CONCLUSION: In this longitudinal cohort study, visuospatial abilities associate with laparoscopic skills and improve with training. Spatial visualisation may be characteristic of laparoscopic expertise as it has clear association with competency development during laparoscopy residency training programme.

Safety and effectiveness of live broadcast of surgical procedures: systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Live Broadcast of Surgical Procedures (LBSP) has gained popularity in conferences and educational meetings in the past few decades. This is due to rapid advancement in both Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) that enable transmission of the entire operative field and transmission ease and technology to help broadcast the operation to a live audience. The aim of this study was to update the evidence with specific emphasis on the patient safety issues related to LBSP in MIS. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using Medline, Embase and Pubmed using defined search terms related to LBSP in educational events across all surgical specialities, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We also consolidated the prior guidelines and position statements on this topic. Outcomes included reports on the educational value of LBSP as well as patient safety outcomes and ethical issues that were captured by clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total 1230 abstracts were identified with 27 papers meeting the inclusion criteria (13 original articles and 14 position statements/guidelines). All studies highlighted the educational benefits of LBSP but without clear measure of these benefits. Clinical outcomes were not compromised in 9 studies but were inferior in the remaining 4, including lower completion rate of endoscopic surgery and higher rate of re-operation. Only nine studies complied with dedicated consent forms for LBSP with no consistent approach of reporting on maintaining patient confidentiality during LBSP. There was a lack of recommendation on standardised approach of reporting on LBSP including the outcomes across the 14 published guidelines and positions statements. CONCLUSIONS: Live Broadcast of Surgical Procedures can be of educational value but patient safety may be compromised. A standardised framework of reporting on LBSP and its outcomes is required from an ethical and patient safety perspective. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021256901.

UEG and EAES rapid guideline: Systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment and evidence-informed European recommendations on TaTME for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evidence and practice recommendations on the use of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer are conflicting. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to summarize best evidence and develop a rapid guideline using transparent, trustworthy, and standardized methodology. METHODS: We developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE, G-I-N, and AGREE II standards. The steering group consisted of general surgeons, members of the EAES Research Committee/Guidelines Subcommittee with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, biostatisticians, and a guideline methodologist. The guideline panel consisted of four general surgeons practicing colorectal surgery, a radiologist with expertise in rectal cancer, a radiation oncologist, a pathologist, and a patient representative. We conducted a systematic review and the results of evidence synthesis by means of meta-analyses were summarized in evidence tables. Recommendations were authored and published through an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), with the guideline panel making use of an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to arrive at consensus. RESULTS: This rapid guideline provides a weak recommendation for the use of TaTME over laparoscopic or robotic TME for low rectal cancer when expertise is available. Furthermore, it details evidence gaps to be addressed by future research and discusses policy considerations. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries, and decision aids in user-friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4494 . CONCLUSIONS: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed trustworthy recommendations on the use of TaTME for rectal cancer.

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.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Abdominal and Pelvic Surgery at Primary and Secondary Hospitals in Low-Middle-Income Countries (LMIC's): Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendation.

BACKGROUND: This is the first Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline for primary and secondary hospitals in low-middle-income countries (LMIC's) for elective abdominal and gynecologic care. METHODS: The ERAS LMIC Guidelines group was established by the ERAS® Society in collaboration with different representatives of perioperative care from LMIC's. The group consisted of seven members from the ERAS® Society and eight members from LMIC's. An updated systematic literature search and evaluation of evidence from previous ERAS® guidelines was performed by the leading authors of the Colorectal (2018) and Gynecologic (2019) surgery guidelines (Gustafsson et al in World J Surg 43:6592-695, Nelson et al in Int J Gynecol Cancer 29(4):651-668). Meta-analyses randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies from both HIC's and LMIC's were considered for each perioperative item. The members in the LMIC group then applied the current evidence and adapted the recommendations for each intervention as well as identifying possible new items relevant to LMIC's. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE) methodology was used to determine the quality of the published evidence. The strength of the recommendations was based on importance of the problem, quality of evidence, balance between desirable and undesirable effects, acceptability to key stakeholders, cost of implementation and specifically the feasibility of implementing in LMIC's and determined through discussions and consensus. RESULTS: In addition to previously described ERAS® Society interventions, the following items were included, revised or discussed: the Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC), preoperative routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing in countries with a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS (CD4 and viral load for those patients that are HIV positive), delirium screening and prevention, COVID 19 screening, VTE prophylaxis, immuno-nutrition, prehabilitation, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and a standardized postoperative monitoring guideline. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are seen as a starting point to address the urgent need to improve perioperative care and to effect data-driven, evidence-based care in LMIC's.