Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37611141›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of surgery2023

Surgical experience and identification of errors in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Gemma L Humm, Adam Peckham-Cooper, Jessica Chang, Roland Fernandes, Naim Fakih Gomez, Helen Mohan, Deirdre Nally, Anthony J Thaventhiran, Roxanna Zakeri, Anaya Gupte and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Gemma L HummWellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Adam Peckham-CooperLeeds Institute of Emergency General Surgery, Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5660-5314
Jessica ChangDepartment of General Surgery, Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, Shrewsbury, UK.
Roland FernandesDepartment of General Surgery, East Kent Hospitals University Foundation Trust, William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, UK.
Naim Fakih GomezUCL Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Helen MohanDepartment of Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Deirdre NallyDepartment of General Surgery, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Anthony J ThaventhiranDepartment of General Surgery, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7163-8341
Roxanna ZakeriUCL Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Anaya GupteDepartment of General Surgery, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, University College Hospital, London, UK.
James CrosbieUCL Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Christopher WoodUCL Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Khaled DawasUCL Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Danail StoyanovWellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0980-3227
Laurence B LovatWellcome/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
University College London · GBEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBMater Misericordiae University Hospital · IERoyal Shrewsbury Hospital · GBThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity College Hospital · GBWilliam Harvey Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UKWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203145/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical errors are acts or omissions resulting in negative consequences and/or increased operating time. This study describes surgeon-reported errors in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

methodsIntraoperative videos were uploaded and annotated on Touch SurgeryTM Enterprise. Participants evaluated videos for severity using a 10-point intraoperative cholecystitis grading score, and errors using Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment, which includes skill, consequence, and mechanism classifications.

resultsNine videos were assessed by 8 participants (3 junior (specialist trainee (ST) 3-5), 2 senior trainees (ST6-8), and 3 consultants). Participants identified 550 errors. Positive relationships were seen between total operating time and error count (r2 = 0.284, P < 0.001), intraoperative grade score and error count (r2 = 0.578, P = 0.001), and intraoperative grade score and total operating time (r2 = 0.157, P < 0.001). Error counts differed significantly across intraoperative phases (H(6) = 47.06, P < 0.001), most frequently at dissection of the hepatocystic triangle (total 282; median 33.5 (i.q.r. 23.5-47.8, range 15-63)), ligation/division of cystic structures (total 124; median 13.5 (i.q.r. 12-19.3, range 10-26)), and gallbladder dissection (total 117; median 14.5 (i.q.r. 10.3-18.8, range 6-26)). There were no significant differences in error counts between juniors, seniors, and consultants (H(2) = 0.03, P = 0.987). Errors were classified differently. For dissection of the hepatocystic triangle, thermal injuries (50 in total) were frequently classified as executional, consequential errors; trainees classified thermal injuries as step done with excessive force, speed, depth, distance, time or rotation (29 out of 50), whereas consultants classified them as incorrect orientation (6 out of 50). For ligation/division of cystic structures, inappropriate clipping (60 errors in total), procedural errors were reported by junior trainees (6 out of 60), but not consultants. For gallbladder dissection, inappropriate dissection (20 errors in total) was reported in incorrect planes by consultants and seniors (6 out of 20), but not by juniors. Poor economy of movement (11 errors in total) was reported more by consultants (8 out of 11) than trainees (3 out of 11).

conclusionThis study suggests that surgical experience influences error interpretation, but the benefits for surgical training are currently unclear.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicDissectionGallbladderHumansLigationReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID37611141
PMCPMC10564403
OpenAlexW4386100412

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.