Observational studyBJS open2022
A multilevel, step-based model to evaluate progress in procedure efficiency for laparoscopic appendicectomy in surgical training: structured evaluation using 'ebb-and-flow' and 'string-of-pearls' concepts.
Observational study in BJS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Training and assessment for colorectal surgery and appendicectomy- a systematic review.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Pooled it
- Training and assessment for colorectal surgery and appendicectomy- a systematic review.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024Pooled it
- Internal and external factors affecting the performance score of surgical trainees doing laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective, observational cohort study in a structured training programme.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical training is aimed towards entrusted professional activity to obtain operative independence. Laparoscopic appendicectomy is performed early in training but except for simulators, real-life evaluation towards proficiency is scarce. The aim of this study was to model how each consecutive step may impact on the overall proficiency score for surgical trainees performing laparoscopic appendicectomy.
methodsThis was an observational cohort study of laparoscopic appendicectomy performed by junior trainees (PGY1-4) under supervision and evaluated for each of eight steps. Each step was scored on a validated six-point performance scale and classified as 'fail', 'pass', or 'proficient'. Modelling was conducted with a multivariable regression model and artificial neural network model with a multilayer perceptron for the relationship between steps and overall performance.
resultsOf 157 procedures, 97 (61.8 per cent) procedures were evaluated as 'proficient', 46 (29.3 per cent) were 'pass', and 14 (8.9 per cent) were 'fail'. In regression analyses, handling the mesoappendix was significantly associated with procedure proficiency, as were division of appendix, access to abdomen, and ability to handle the small bowel. The widest variation in operative flow was shown for steps involving mesoappendix and division of appendix, conceptualized in 'ebb-and-flow' and 'string-of-pearls' models. Sensitivity analyses for experience using 20 or fewer, 30 or fewer, or more than 30 procedures as cut-offs reproduced comparable results.
conclusionsConsistent stumbling blocks for junior trainees performing laparoscopic appendectomies can be conceptualized through novel models that identify steps deemed to be the most difficult to trainees with variable experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.