Assessment methods in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review of available instruments.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has become the golden standard for many procedures, requiring new skills and training methods. The aim of this review is to appraise literature on assessment methods for laparoscopic colorectal procedures and quantify these methods for implementation in surgical training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched in October 2022 for studies reporting learning and assessment methods for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Quality was scored using the Downs and Black checklist. Included articles were categorized in procedure-based assessment methods and non-procedure-based assessment methods. A second distinction was made between capability for formative and/or summative assessment. RESULTS: In this systematic review, nineteen studies were included. These studies showed large heterogeneity despite categorization. Median quality score was 15 (range 0-26). Fourteen studies were categorized as procedure-based assessment methods (PBA), and five as non-procedure-based assessment methods. Three studies were applicable for summative assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The results show a considerable diversity in assessment methods with varying quality and suitability. To prevent a sprawl of assessment methods, we argue for selection and development of available high-quality assessment methods. A procedure-based structure combined with an objective assessment scale and possibility for summative assessment should be cornerstones.

Procedure-based assessment for laparoscopic cholecystectomy can replace global rating scales.

INTRODUCTION: Global rating scales (GRSs) such as the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) and Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Surgery (GOALS) are assessment methods for surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to establish construct validity of Procedure-Based Assessment (PBA) and to compare PBA with GRSs for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: OSATS and GOALS GRSs were compared with PBA in their ability to discriminate between levels of performance between trainees who can perform the procedure independently and those who cannot. Three groups were formed based on the number of procedures performed by the trainee: novice (1-10), intermediate (11-20) and experienced (>20). Differences between groups were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Increasing experience correlated significantly with higher GRSs and PBA scores (all p < .001). Scores of novice and intermediate groups overlapped substantially on the OSATS (p = .1) and GOALS (p = .1), while the PBA discriminated between these groups (p = .03). The median score in the experienced group was higher with less dispersion for PBA (97.2[85.3-100]) compared to OSATS (82.1[60.7-100]) and GOALS (80[60-100]). CONCLUSION: For assessing skill level or the capability of performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy independently, PBA has a higher discriminative ability compared to the GRSs.

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.