Development of an affordable, immersive model for robotic vaginal cuff closure: a randomized trial

Gheza, Federico; Pinkard, Lauren; Grand, Arielle; Aguiluz-Cornejo, Gabriela; Mangano, Alberto; Ladányi, András

doi:10.1007/s11701-022-01404-x

Cited by 1 publication

(8 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nine out of 13 (69.2%) procedure‐specific tool studies 31–33,42–44,46–50,60 showed construct or concurrent validity. Nine out of 11 (81.8%) APM showed construct or criterion validity 51–53,55,56,67,72,78–90 . None of the included studies reported on the association between intraoperative performance of practicing surgeons to clinical/postoperative outcomes of patients (predictive validity).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 10 out of 13 (79.6%) global tools reported relationships to other variables by either comparing novices to experts (construct validity) or showing significant correlation between scoring outcomes and other performance assessment tools, considered the gold standard (concurrent validity) 22–24,27,28,30,35,36,38–40,57,58,61–77 . Nine out of 13 (69.2%) procedure‐specific tool studies 31–33,42–44,46–50,60 showed construct or concurrent validity.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…outcomes and other performance assessment tools, considered the gold standard (concurrent validity). [22][23][24]27,28,30,35,36,[38][39][40]57,58,[61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] Nine out of 13 (69.2%) procedure-specific tool studies [31][32][33][42][43][44][46][47][48][49][50]60 showed construct or concurrent validity.…”

Section: Ta B L Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most common reported form was inter-rater reliability with 10 out of 13 (76.9%) global rating tools and 10 out of 13 (76.9%) procedurespecific tools. All manual global tools report good to excellent inter-rater reliability, [23][24][25]30,33,35,[37][38][39][40]57,[61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70] with the exception of one modified OSATS in a dry laboratory setting for a simple laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy by Chahine et al 71 Inter-rater reliability among procedure-specific tools [31][32][33][42][43][44]46,47,59,60 showed good to excellent correlation except for specific domains for the H-OSATS and the dissection assessment for robotic technique. 43,60 Intrarater reliability was reported for 4/13 (30.8%) global tools demonstrating excellent intrarater reliability.…”

Section: Internal Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four out of 26 (15.4%) manual (global and procedure-specific tools) provided benchmark scores. 30,32,35,57,60,64,67 One out of 11 (9.1%)…”

Section: Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Objective assessment tools in laparoscopic or robotic‐assisted gynecological surgery: A systematic review

Tesfai,

Nagi,

Morrison

et al. 2024

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThere 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 methodsA 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsExisting 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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%