ArticleThe British journal of surgery2023
Surgical experience and identification of errors in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Objective technical skills assessment in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of manual, kinematic, and AI-based tools.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Remote Robotic Neurointervention: Overcoming Procedural and Connectivity Challenges.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- SwinCVS: a unified approach to classifying critical view of safety structures in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a machine learning-based nomogram for preoperative prediction of laparoscopic surgical difficulty in gallstone patients.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Article
- Efficacy of multi-color near-infrared fluorescence with indocyanine green: A new imaging strategy and its early experience in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Adoption of routine surgical video recording: a nationwide freedom of information act request across England and Wales.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Response to: Comment on 'Surgical experience and identification of errors in laparoscopic cholecystectomy'.The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
- Preemptive hydromorphone analgesia reduces postoperative delirium and stress response in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
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
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.