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.