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.

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.