Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29352453›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018

Measuring surgical safety during minimally invasive surgical procedures: a validation study.

Mathijs D Blikkendaal, Sara R C Driessen, Sharon P Rodrigues, Johann P T Rhemrev, Maddy J G H Smeets, Jenny Dankelman, John J van den Dobbelsteen, Frank Willem Jansen

Abstract readValidation StudyVideo-Audio Media
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. STAGES AND FACTORS OF THE "PERIOPERATIVE PROCESS": POINTS IN COMMON WITH THE AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRY.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mathijs D BlikkendaalDepartment of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands. m.d.blikkendaal@lumc.nl.
Sara R C DriessenDepartment of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sharon P RodriguesDepartment of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Johann P T RhemrevDepartment of Gynecology, Haaglanden Medical Center, P.O. Box 96900, 2509 JH, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Maddy J G H SmeetsDepartment of Gynecology, Haaglanden Medical Center, P.O. Box 96900, 2509 JH, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Jenny DankelmanDepartment of BioMechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands.
John J van den DobbelsteenDepartment of BioMechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands.
Frank Willem JansenDepartment of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the implementation of new interventions (i.e., surgical devices and technologies) in the operating room, surgical safety might be compromised. Current safety measures are insufficient in detecting safety hazards during this process. The aim of the study was to observe whether surgical teams are capable of measuring surgical safety, especially with regard to the introduction of new interventions.

methodsA Surgical Safety Questionnaire was developed that had to be filled out directly postoperative by three surgical team members. A potential safety concern was defined as at least one answer between (strongly) disagree and indifferent. The validity of the questionnaire was assessed by comparison with the results from video analysis. Two different observers annotated the presence and effect of surgical flow disturbances during 40 laparoscopic hysterectomies performed between November 2010 and April 2012.

resultsThe surgeon reported a potential safety concern in 16% (85/520 questions). With respect to the scrub nurse and anesthesiologist, this was both 9% (46/520). With respect to the preparation, functioning, and ease of use of the devices in 37.5-47.5% (15-19/40 procedures) a potential safety concern was reported by one or more team members. During procedures after which a potential safety concern was reported, surgical flow disturbances lasted a higher percentage of the procedure duration [9.3 ± 6.2 vs. 2.9 ± 3.7% (mean ± SD), p < .001]. After procedures during which a new instrument or device was used, more potential safety concerns were reported (51.2 vs. 23.1%, p < .001).

conclusionsPotential safety concerns were especially reported during procedures in which a relatively high percentage of the duration consisted of surgical flow disturbances and during procedures in which a new instrument or device was used. The Surgical Safety Questionnaire can act as a validated tool to evaluate and maintain surgical safety during minimally invasive procedures, especially during the introduction of a new intervention.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansHysterectomyIntraoperative PeriodLaparoscopyMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresOperating RoomsSurgeonsSurveys and QuestionnairesInterobserver reliabilityMinimally invasive surgerySurgical safetyVideo observation

Identifiers

PMID29352453
PMCPMC5988766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.