Search

Importance: Assessing nontechnical skills in operating rooms (ORs) is crucial for enhancing surgical performance and patient safety. However, automated and real-time evaluation of these skills remains challenging., Objective: To explore the feasibility of using motion features extracted from surgical video recordings to automatically assess nontechnical skills during cardiac surgical procedures., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used video recordings of cardiac surgical procedures at a tertiary academic US hospital collected from January 2021 through May 2022. The OpenPose library was used to analyze videos to extract body pose estimations of team members and compute various team motion features. The Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) assessment tool was employed for rating the OR team's nontechnical skills by 3 expert raters., Main Outcomes and Measures: NOTSS overall score, with motion features extracted from surgical videos as measures., Results: A total of 30 complete cardiac surgery procedures were included: 26 (86.6%) were on-pump coronary artery bypass graft procedures and 4 (13.4%) were aortic valve replacement or repair procedures. All patients were male, and the mean (SD) age was 72 (6.3) years. All surgical teams were composed of 4 key roles (attending surgeon, attending anesthesiologist, primary perfusionist, and scrub nurse) with additional supporting roles. NOTSS scores correlated significantly with trajectory (r = 0.51, P = .005), acceleration (r = 0.48, P = .008), and entropy (r = -0.52, P = .004) of team displacement. Multiple linear regression, adjusted for patient factors, showed average team trajectory (adjusted R2 = 0.335; coefficient, 10.51 [95% CI, 8.81-12.21]; P = .004) and team displacement entropy (adjusted R2 = 0.304; coefficient, -12.64 [95% CI, -20.54 to -4.74]; P = .003) were associated with NOTSS scores., Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests a significant link between OR team movements and nontechnical skills ratings by NOTSS during cardiac surgical procedures, suggesting automated surgical video analysis could enhance nontechnical skills assessment. Further investigation across different hospitals and specialties is necessary to validate these findings.

Importance: Value-based purchasing creates pressure to examine whether newer technologies and care processes, including new surgical techniques, yield any economic advantage., Objective: To compare health care costs and utilization between participants randomized to receive endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) or open vein harvesting (OVH) during a coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedure., Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary economic analysis was conducted alongside the 16-site Randomized Endo-Vein Graft Prospective (REGROUP) clinical trial funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program. Adults scheduled for urgent or elective bypass involving a vein graft were eligible. The first participant was enrolled in September 2013, with most sites completing enrollment by March 2014. The last participant was enrolled in April 2017. A total of 1150 participants were randomized, with 574 participants receiving OVH and 576 receiving EVH. For this secondary analysis, cost and utilization data were extracted through September 30, 2020. Participants were linked to administrative data in the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and activity-based cost data starting with the index procedure., Interventions: EVH vs OVH, with comparisons based on intention to treat., Main Outcomes and Measures: Discharge costs for the index procedure as well as follow-up costs (including intended and unintended events; mean [SD] follow-up time, 33.0 [19.9] months) were analyzed, with results from different statistical models compared to test for robustness (ie, lack of variation across models). All costs represented care provided or paid by the VA, standardized to 2020 US dollars., Results: Among 1150 participants, the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (6.9) years; most participants (1144 [99.5%] were male. With regard to race and ethnicity, 6 participants (0.5%) self-reported as American Indian or Alaska Native, 10 (0.9%) as Asian or Pacific Islander, 91 (7.9%) as Black, 62 (5.4%) as Hispanic, 974 (84.7%) as non-Hispanic White, and 6 (0.5%) as other race and/or ethnicity; data were missing for 1 participant (0.1%). The unadjusted mean (SD) costs for the index CABG procedure were $76 607 ($43 883) among patients who received EVH and $75 368 ($45 900) among those who received OVH, including facility costs, insurance costs, and physician-related costs (commonly referred to as provider costs in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and insurance data). No significant differences were found in follow-up costs; per 90-day follow-up period, EVH was associated with a mean (SE) added cost of $302 ($225) per patient. The results were highly robust to the statistical model., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, EVH was not associated with a reduction in costs for the index CABG procedure or follow-up care. Therefore, the choice to provide EVH may be based on surgeon and patient preferences., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01850082.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence to evaluate 2 or more surgical interventions. Surgical RCTs, however, face unique challenges in design and implementation., Objective: To evaluate the design, conduct, and reporting of contemporary surgical RCTs., Evidence Review: A literature search performed in the 2 journals with the highest impact factor in general medicine as well as 6 key surgical specialties was conducted to identify RCTs published between 2008 and 2020. All RCTs describing a surgical intervention in both experimental and control arms were included. The quality of included data was assessed by establishing an a priori protocol containing all the details to extract. Trial characteristics, fragility index, risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 Tool), pragmatism (Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 [PRECIS-2]), and reporting bias were assessed., Findings: A total of 388 trials were identified. Of them, 242 (62.4%) were registered; discrepancies with the published protocol were identified in 81 (33.5%). Most trials used superiority design (329 [84.8%]), and intention-to-treat as primary analysis (221 [56.9%]) and were designed to detect a large treatment effect (50.0%; interquartile range [IQR], 24.7%-63.3%). Only 123 trials (31.7%) used major clinical events as the primary outcome. Most trials (303 [78.1%]) did not control for surgeon experience; only 17 trials (4.4%) assessed the quality of the intervention. The median sample size was 122 patients (IQR, 70-245 patients). The median follow-up was 24 months (IQR, 12.0-32.0 months). Most trials (211 [54.4%]) had some concern of bias and 91 (23.5%) had high risk of bias. The mean (SD) PRECIS-2 score was 3.52 (0.65) and increased significantly over the study period. Most trials (212 [54.6%]) reported a neutral result; reporting bias was identified in 109 of 211 (51.7%). The median fragility index was 3.0 (IQR, 1.0-6.0). Multiplicity was detected in 175 trials (45.1%), and only 35 (20.0%) adjusted for multiple comparisons., Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, the size of contemporary surgical trials was small and the focus was on minor clinical events. Trial registration remained suboptimal and discrepancies with the published protocol and reporting bias were frequent. Few trials controlled for surgeon experience or assessed the quality of the intervention.