Objective Assessment of Microsurgery Competency—In Search of a Validated Tool

Rajan, Sheeja; Sathyan, Ranjith; Sreelesh, L. S.; Kallerey, Anu Anto; Antharjanam, Aarathy; Sumitha, Raj; Sundar, Jinchu; John, Ronnie Johnson; Soumya, S.

doi:10.1055/s-0039-1695658

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) evaluation forms were created to assess individual technical improvements. [12][13][14] They are used to evaluate each participant in a contest format, 15,16 and the results of long-term observations are discussed and reported. 5 5 min.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of a Contest Format for Objective Assessment of Microsurgical Technique: An Observational Study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Considering the lack of studies on the long-term evaluation of improvements in microsurgical techniques using simulation models, we determined whether technical improvements in surgical techniques could be assessed based on an increase in the score of contest-style continuous and objective evaluation systems involving the same microsurgical task.Methods: Since 2014, neurosurgeons with 1-10 years of experience participated in a biannual competition-style test. The task involved suturing as many times as possible within 5 min after arteriotomy of 1-mm artificial vessels. A modified version of the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills examination was created and used. Changes and differences in scoring results over time were examined for each evaluator.Results: Overall, 103 neurosurgeons participated in the study at least once, and those who participated more than once were divided into two groups: those who obtained the highest score in each contest and those who obtained the lowest score. The linear regression equations for the highest and lowest scorer groups were y=7.62x+81.56 (R 2 =0.628) and y=1.94x+67.93 (R 2 =0.0433), respectively. The high-scoring group had high scores from the first time they participated, and their scores tended to increase further, while the low-scoring group did not show any tendency of score increases after gaining experience. No significant differences were found in scores according to four evaluators. Conclusions:Our study showed the possibility of assessing technical improvements in surgery through long-term and continuous microsurgical technique evaluation. A surgical technique evaluation system was established, and its potential to contribute to surgical safety was demonstrated.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of a Contest Format for Objective Assessment of Microsurgical Technique: An Observational Study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, quantitative, objective, and reproducible assessments of surgical competency are increasingly a focus of surgical education, particularly within microsurgical training. [6][7][8][9] Gender bias has been found to substantially impact traditional observational assessments of graduate level medical trainees across several specialties, including surgery. [10][11][12][13] Therefore, the surgical trainee evaluations are a clear target for both assessing and addressing gender bias.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Video-Based Assessment of Microsurgical Trainees: An Evaluation of Gender Bias

Schaefer,

Thayer,

Colon

et al. 2023

J Reconstr Microsurg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Gender bias in graduate medical evaluations remains a challenging issue. This study evaluates implicit gender bias in video-based evaluations of microsurgical technique, which has not previously been described in the literature. Methods: Two videos were recorded of microsurgical anastomosis; the first was performed by a hand/microsurgery fellow and the second by an expert microsurgeon. 150 surgeons with microsurgical experience were recruited to evaluate the videos; they were told these videos depicted a surgical trainee 1-month into fellowship followed by the same trainee 10 months later. The only variable was the name (“Rachel” or “David”) that each participant was randomly assigned to evaluate. Participants were asked to score each video for quality, technique, efficiency, as well as overall progression and development after the second video compared to the initial video. To focus on bias, these outcome measures were selected to be purposefully subjective and all ratings were based on a subjective 1-10 scale (10=excellent). Results: The analysis included 150 participants (75% male). There were no statistically significant differences in scores between the “female” and “male” trainee. The trainees received the same median initial (1-month video) and final (11th month video) scores for all criteria except initial technique, in which the female trainee received a 7 and the male trainee received an 8. Notably, 11-month scores were consistently the same or lower than 1-month scores for both study groups (p < 0.001). There were also no differences within either study group based on participant sex. Microsurgery practitioners overall rated both groups lower than those who do not currently practice microsurgery. Conclusion: Our study did not identify a gender bias in this evaluation method. Further investigation into how we assess and grade trainees as well as the presence and impact of implicit biases on varying surgical assessment methods is warranted.

show abstract