Search

Objective: The Fundamentals in Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) examination is designed to test laparoscopic surgery skills. Our aim for this systematic review was to examine validity evidence supporting or refuting the FLS examination specifically as a high-stakes summative assessment tool in gynecology., Data Sources: The data sources were PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus., Methods of Study Selection: The study eligibility criterion was the subject of the FLS examination as an assessment tool in gynecology. We developed a data extraction tool and assigned articles for screening and extraction to all authors, who then abstracted data independently. Conflicts that arose during the extraction process were resolved by consensus. We organized validity evidence for the cognitive and manual skills portions on the basis of the categories of current validation standards., Tabulation, Integration, and Results: From 1971 citations identified, 9 studies were included, involving 319 participants. For the cognitive portion of the test, the results were mixed in 5 studies in relationships with the other variables category. For the manual portion of the test, most of the studies focused on the relationships with other variables evidence with mixed findings. The concerning findings in the manual skills portion included the lack of transferability of skills to the operating room, limited mixed evidence for improvement in operating room performance, and worse performance by obstetrics and gynecology surgeons compared with other specialties. We did not find supportive content-based, response process, or consequential evidence in either the cognitive or manual skills portion of the test., Conclusion: Validity evidence for the FLS examination was either mixed, as it pertained to relationships with other variables, or lacking in other important evidence categories. Further evidence is required to justify the use of the FLS examination scores as a high-stakes summative assessment., (Copyright © 2021 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate differences in standardized scores and surgical confidence in the completion of a standardized total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TLH-BSO) among obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) with different levels of training, and to assess a TLH-BSO model for validity., Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 68 participants within four categories of ob-gyns: 1) graduating or recently graduated residents (n=18), 2) minimally invasive gynecologic surgery graduating or recently graduated fellows (n=16), 3) specialists in general obstetrics and gynecology (n=15), and 4) fellowship-trained minimally invasive gynecologic surgery subspecialists (n=19) who completed a TLH-BSO simulation. Participants completed presimulation questionnaires assessing laparoscopic confidence. Participants performed a video-recorded TLH-BSO and contained specimen removal on a standardized 250-g biological model in a simulated operating room and completed a postsimulation questionnaire., Results: Randomized videos were scored by blinded experts using the validated OSATS (Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills). The surgery was divided into five standardized segments: 1) adnexa, 2) dissection and pedicles, 3) colpotomy, 4) cuff closure, and 5) tissue extraction. Minimally invasive gynecologic surgery subspecialists averaging 8.9 years in practice scored highest in all categories (overall median score 91%, P<.001), followed by fellows (64%, P<.001), specialists in obstetrics and gynecology averaging 19.7 years in practice (63%, P<.001), and residents (56%, P<.001). Residents, fellows and specialists in obstetrics and gynecology were comparable overall. Fellows scored higher on cuff closure (63% vs 50%, P<.03) and tissue extraction (77% vs 60%, P<.009) compared with specialists in obstetrics and gynecology. Minimally invasive gynecologic surgery subspecialists were fastest overall and on each individual component. Residents were slowest in almost all categories., Conclusion: When performing a TLH-BSO of a standardized 250-g uterus on a simulation model, fellowship-trained minimally invasive gynecologic surgery subspecialists achieved higher OSATS in all areas and completed all components faster. Similar performances were noted between residents, fellows, and specialists in obstetrics and gynecology in practice an average of 19.7 years., Funding Source: Support from Applied Medical, Medtronic, CooperSurgical, and Karl Storz in the form of in-kind equipment was obtained through unrestricted educational grants.

Purpose of Review: The negative impact of postoperative adhesions has long been recognized, but available options for prevention remain limited. Minimally invasive surgery is associated with decreased adhesion formation due to meticulous dissection with gentile tissue handling, improved hemostasis, and limiting exposure to reactive foreign material; however, there is conflicting evidence on the clinical significance of adhesion-related disease when compared to open surgery. Laparoscopic surgery does not guarantee the prevention of adhesions because longer operative times and high insufflation pressure can promote adhesion formation. Adhesion barriers have been available since the 1980s, but uptake among surgeons remains low and there is no clear evidence that they reduce clinically significant outcomes such as chronic pain or infertility. In this article, we review the ongoing magnitude of adhesion-related complications in gynecologic surgery, currently available interventions and new research toward more effective adhesion prevention., Recent Findings: Recent literature provides updated epidemiologic data and estimates of healthcare costs associated with adhesion-related complications. There have been important advances in our understanding of normal peritoneal healing and the pathophysiology of adhesions. Adhesion barriers continue to be tested for safety and effectiveness and new agents have shown promise in clinical studies. Finally, there are many experimental studies of new materials and pharmacologic and biologic prevention agents., Summary: There is great interest in new adhesion prevention technologies, but new agents are unlikely to be available for clinical use for many years. High-quality effectiveness and outcomes-related research is still needed.

Background: Many patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have metastases at diagnosis. Despite extensive metastases the primary tumors remain small and difficult to locate., Methods: Records of patients diagnosed with metastatic abdominal NETs from 2006 to 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. Results of preoperative imaging, procedures, and surgical explorations were compared for their efficacy at finding primary tumors., Results: Sixty-three patients were identified. Seventeen percent (11 of 63) of tumors were located by preoperative testing. The sensitivities of preoperative colonoscopy (23% [n = 26]), computed tomography scan (6.7% [n = 60]), and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (2.0% [n = 52]) were low. No tumors were found by magnetic resonance imaging (n = 9), upper endoscopy (n = 24), capsule endoscopy (n = 2), or bronchoscopy (n = 4). Surgical exploration was the most sensitive (79% [n = 63]) method of tumor detection. Seventy-two percent of surgical localizations were laparoscopic., Conclusions: Surgical exploration was superior to all other modalities for locating primary NETs. Laparoscopy had a high probability of finding occult primary neuroendocrine tumors., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)