Training and assessment for colorectal surgery and appendicectomy- a systematic review.

AIM: There is currently an increased focus on competency-based training, in which training and assessment play a crucial role. The aim of this systematic review is to create an overview of hands-on training methods and assessment tools for appendicectomy and colon and rectal surgery procedures using either an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach. METHOD: A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. We conducted the last search on 9 March 2023. All published papers describing hands-on training, evaluation of performance data and development of assessment tools were eligible. The quality of studies and the validity evidence of assessment tools are reported. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were identified. Laparoscopic assessment tools are abundant, but the literature still lacks good-quality assessment tools for open appendicectomy, robotic colectomy and open rectal surgery. Overall, there is a lack of discussion regarding the establishment of pass/fail standards and the consequences of assessment. Virtual reality simulation is used more for appendicectomy than colorectal procedures. Only a few of the studies investigating training were of acceptable quality. There is a need for high-quality studies in open and robotic-assisted colon surgery and all approaches to rectal surgery. CONCLUSION: This review provides an overview of current training methods and assessment tools and identifies where more research is needed based on the quality of the studies and the current validity evidence.

Technical assessment in minimally invasive complete mesocolic excision: Is the complete mesocolic excision competency assessment tool valid and reliable?

AIM: The complete mesocolic excision competency assessment tool (CMECAT) is a novel tool designed to assess technical skills in minimally invasive complete mesocolic excision (CME) surgery. The aim of this study was to assess construct validity and reliability of CMECAT in a clinical context. METHOD: Colorectal surgeons were asked to submit video recorded laparoscopic CME resections for independent assessment of their technical abilities. The videos were grouped by surgeons' training level, and four established CME experts were recruited as CMECAT assessors. Extended reliability analysis (G-theory) was applied to describe assessor agreement. RESULTS: A total of 19 videos and 72 assessments were included in the analysis. Overall, technical skills assessed by CMECAT improved with increased training level: the experts scored significantly better than the untrained surgeons (3.3 vs. 2.5 points; p < 0.01). On right-sided resections, significantly higher scores were reported with increased training level for all categories and sections, while for left-sided resections, the variance across groups was smaller and significantly higher scores were only reported for oncological safety describing items. Overall, assessor agreement was high (G-coefficient: 0.81). CONCLUSION: This study confirms that CMECAT can be applied to video recorded CME cases for technical skill assessment. Further, it can reliably assess technical performance in right sided CME surgery, where construct validity has now been established. More videos are required to evaluate its validity on left colonic CME. In the future, we hope CMECAT can improve feedback during CME training, serve as a tool in certification processes and contribute to distinguishing CME from conventional surgery in future research.

Short-Term Results of Operative Treatment of Primary Ileocecal Crohn's Disease: Retrospective, Comparative Analysis between Early (Luminal) and Complicated Disease.

Early surgical treatment for patients with ileocecal Crohn's disease (CD) could be an alternative to biological therapy. The aim of this study is to compare operative outcomes following ileocecal resection for patients with luminal and complicated CD. Patients operated for primary ileocecal CD during 8 years in one tertiary-referral hospital were allocated into 2 groups: those operated for early (luminal) disease (ECD), and for complications of CD (CCD). A retrospective comparative analysis was performed. A total of 273 patients were included in the analysis, 85 (31%) of which were in the ECD group. No difference was found regarding time from diagnosis to surgery. Surgical procedures were longer in the CCD group, with lower rates of laparoscopic approach (93 vs. 99%, p = 0.035) and higher conversion rates (20 vs. 2%, p < 0.001). ECD had non-significant differences in terms of major postoperative complications (9.4 vs. 14.9%, p = 0.215), shorter hospital stays, and lower rates of anastomotic leakage (3.5 vs. 6.8%, p = 0.285). Conversely, the CCD group had higher reoperation and re-hospitalization rates. Adequate timing for the indication of surgery in primary ileocecal CD, including an early discussion considering both medical and surgical treatment as options, could positively influence operative outcomes.

Development of a procedure-specific tool for skill assessment in left- and right-sided laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision.

AIM: To (1) develop an assessment tool for laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (LCME) and (2) report evidence of its content validity. METHOD: Assessment statements were revealed through (1) semi-structured expert interviews and (2) consensus by the Delphi method, both involving an expert panel of five LCME surgeons. All experts were interviewed and then asked to rate LCME describing statements from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Responses were returned anonymously to the panel until consensus was reached. Statements were directly included as content in the assessment tool if ≥60% of the experts responded "agree" or "strongly agree" (ratings 4 and 5), with the remaining responses being "neither agree nor disagree" (rating 3). Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for expert agreement evaluation. All included statements were subsequently reformulated as tool items and approved by the experts. RESULTS: Four Delphi rounds were performed to reach consensus. Disagreement was reported for statements describing instrument handling around pancreas; visualisation of landmarks before inferior mesenteric artery ligation; lymphadenectomy around the inferior mesenteric artery, and division of the terminal ileum and transverse colon. ICC in the last Delphi-round was 0.84. The final tool content included 73 statements, converted to 48 right- and 40 left-sided items for LCME assessment. CONCLUSION: A procedure-specific, video-based tool, named complete mesocolic excision competency assessment tool (CMECAT), has been developed for LCME skill assessment. In the future, we hope it can facilitate assessment of LCME surgeons, resulting in improved patient outcome after colon cancer surgery.

How can surgical skills in laparoscopic colon surgery be objectively assessed?-a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: In laparoscopic colorectal surgery, higher technical skills have been associated with improved patient outcome. With the growing interest in laparoscopic techniques, pressure on surgeons and certifying bodies is mounting to ensure that operative procedures are performed safely and efficiently. The aim of the present review was to comprehensively identify tools for skill assessment in laparoscopic colon surgery and to assess their validity as reported in the literature. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in EMBASE and PubMed/MEDLINE in May 2021 to identify studies examining technical skills assessment tools in laparoscopic colon surgery. Available information on validity evidence (content, response process, internal structure, relation to other variables, and consequences) was evaluated for all included tools. RESULTS: Fourteen assessment tools were identified, of which most were procedure-specific and video-based. Most tools reported moderate validity evidence. Commonly not reported were rater training, assessment correlation with variables other than training level, and validity reproducibility and reliability in external educational settings. CONCLUSION: The results of this review show that several tools are available for evaluation of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery, but few authors present substantial validity for tool development and use. As we move towards the implementation of new techniques in laparoscopic colon surgery, it is imperative to establish validity before surgical skill assessment tools can be applied to new procedures and settings. Therefore, future studies ought to examine different aspects of tool validity, especially correlation with other variables, such as patient morbidity and pathological reports, which impact patient survival.