Search

Objective: Laparoscopic surgical skill assessment and machine learning are often inaccessible to low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC). Our team developed a low-cost laparoscopic training system to teach and assess psychomotor skills required in laparoscopic salpingostomy in LMICs. We performed video review using AI to assess global surgical techniques. The objective of this study was to assess the validity of artificial intelligence (AI) generated scoring measures of laparoscopic simulation videos by comparing the accuracy of AI results to human-generated scores., Design: Seventy-four surgical simulation videos were collected and graded by human participants using a modified OSATS (Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills). The videos were then analyzed via AI using 3 different time and distance-based calculations of the laparoscopic instruments including path length, dimensionless jerk, and standard deviation of tool position. Predicted scores were generated using 5-fold cross validation and K-Nearest-Neighbors to train classifiers., Setting: Surgical novices and experts from a variety of hospitals in Ethiopia, Cameroon, Kenya, and the United States contributed 74 laparoscopic salpingostomy simulation videos., Results: Complete accuracy of AI compared to human assessment ranged from 65-77%. There were no statistical differences in rank mean scores for 3 domains, Flow of Operation, Respect for Tissue, and Economy of Motion, while there were significant differences in ratings for Instrument Handling, Overall Performance, and the total summed score of all 5 domains (Summed). Estimated effect sizes were all less than 0.11, indicating very small practical effect. Estimated intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of Summed was 0.72 indicating moderate correlation between AI and Human scores., Conclusions: Video review using AI technology of global characteristics was similar to that of human review in our laparoscopic training system. Machine learning may help fill an educational gap in LMICs where direct apprenticeship may not be feasible., (Copyright © 2023 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Within medical school's holistic review of applicants includes a review of their distance travelled to get to this point in their education. The AAMC defines distance travelled (DT) as, 'any obstacles or hardships you've overcome to get to this point in your education or any life challenges you've faced and conquered'. What medical students consider as their distance travelled has not been explored. The authors sought to identify the factors medical students perceive are important for medical school admissions to consider when assessing someone's 'distance travelled' by asking current medical students to share their DT experiences along with the barriers and facilitators they encountered on their medical school journey., Methods: The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with US medical students through purposeful sampling methods. The social-ecological model framework was used to develop questions to elicit participants' experiences that contributed to their distance travelled. Interviews were conducted in 2021 and ranged from 60-75 minutes. Transcribed interviews were qualitatively analysed using interpretive description., Results: A total of 31 medical students from seven medical schools were included in the study. Overall, participants defined distance travelled as an applicant's hardships (e.g. being the primary caregiver for a family member) and privileges (e.g. having physician parents) they experienced. Three major themes were identified: (1) individual-level characteristics and factors, (2) interpersonal relationships and (3) aspects of the participants' community and society., Discussion: Our findings show that medical school applicants considered DT to be a valuable component of a holistic medical school admission process. Participants' experiences of DT were varied and complex. Our research suggests that admissions teams for medical schools should incorporate more comprehensive recruitment practices and inclusive methodological frameworks to accurately capture the diversity of identities and experiences of medical school applicants and to consider the factors that shape their journey to medical schools., (© 2023 The Authors. Medical Education published by Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The SIMPL operative feedback tool is used in many U.S. surgical residency programs. However, the challenges of implementation and benefits of the web-based platform in low- and middle-income countries are unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate implementation of SIMPL in a general surgery residency training program in Kenya., Methods: SIMPL was pilot tested at Tenwek Hospital from January through December 2021. Participant perspectives of SIMPL were elicited through a survey and semi-structured interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey data. Inductive qualitative content analysis of interview responses was performed by two independent researchers., Results: Fourteen residents and six faculty (100% response rate) were included in the study and completed over 600 operative assessments. All respondents reported numerical evaluations and dictated feedback were useful. Respondents felt that SIMPL was easy to use, improved quality and frequency of feedback, helped refine surgical skills, and increased resident autonomy. Barriers to use included participants forgetting to complete evaluations, junior residents not submitting evaluations when minimally involved in cases, and technological challenges. Suggestions for improvement included expansion of SIMPL to surgical subspecialties and allowing senior residents to provide feedback to juniors. All respondents wanted to continue using SIMPL, and 90% recommended use at other programs., Conclusion: Residents and faculty at Tenwek Hospital believed SIMPL were a positive addition to their training program. There were a few barriers to use and suggestions for improvement specific to the training environment in Kenya, but this study demonstrates it is feasible to use SIMPL in settings outside the U.S. with the appropriate resources., (© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Société Internationale de Chirurgie.)

Background: Laparoscopic training remains inaccessible for surgeons in low- and middle-income countries, limiting its widespread adoption. We developed a novel tool for assessment of laparoscopic appendectomy skills through ALL-SAFE, a low-cost laparoscopy training system., Methods: This pilot study in Ethiopia, Cameroon, and the USA assessed appendectomy skills using the ALL-SAFE training system. Performance measures were captured using the ALL-SAFE verification of proficiency tool (APPY-VOP), consisting of a checklist, modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (m-OSATS), and final rating. Twenty participants, including novice (n = 11), intermediate (n = 8), and expert (n = 1), completed an online module covering appendicitis management and psychomotor skills in laparoscopic appendectomy. After viewing an expert skills demonstration video, participants recorded their performance within ALL-SAFE. Using the APPY-VOP, participants rated their own and three peer videos. We used the Kruskal-Wallis test and a Many-Facet Rasch Model to evaluate (i) capacity of APPY-VOP to differentiate performance levels, (ii) correlation among three APPY-VOP components, and (iii) rating differences across groups., Results: Checklist scores increased from novice (M = 21.02) to intermediate (M = 23.64) and expert (M = 28.25), with differentiation between experts and novices, P = 0.005. All five m-OSATS domains and global summed, total summed, and final rating discriminated across all performance levels (P < 0.001). APPY-VOP final ratings adequately discriminated Competent (M = 2.0), Borderline (N = 1.8), and Not Competent (M = 1.4) performances, Χ 2 (2,85) = 32.3, P = 0.001. There was a positive correlation between ALL-SAFE checklist and m-OSATS summed scores, r(83) = 0.63, P < 0.001. Comparison of ratings suggested no differences across expertise levels (P = 0.69) or location (P = 0.66)., Conclusion: APPY-VOP effectively discriminated between novice and expert performance in laparoscopic appendectomy skills in a simulated setting. Scoring alignment across raters suggests consistent evaluation, independent of expertise. These results support the use of APPY-VOP among all skill levels inside a peer rating system. Future studies will focus on correlating proficiency to clinical practice and scaling ALL-SAFE to other settings., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The use of synoptic reporting has been shown to improve documentation of critical information and provide added value related to data access and extraction, data reliability, relevant detail, and completeness of information. Surgeon acceptance and adoption of synoptic reports has lagged behind other specialties., Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the process of implementing a synoptic operative report., Design: This study was a mixed-methods process evaluation including surveys and qualitative interviews., Settings: This study focused on colorectal surgery practices across the United States., Patients: Twenty-eight board-certified colorectal surgeons were included., Interventions: The synoptic operative report for rectal cancer was implemented., Main Outcome Measures: Acceptability, feasibility, and usability were measured by Likert-type survey questions and followed up with individual interviews to elicit experiences with implementation as well as motivations and barriers to use., Results: Among all study participants, 28 surgeons completed the electronic survey (76% response rate) and 21 (57%) completed the telephone interview. Mean usability was 4.14 (range, 1-5; SE, 0.15), mean feasibility was 3.90 (SE, 0.15), and acceptability was 3.98 (SE, 0.18). Participants indicated that substantial administrative and technical support were necessary but not always available for implementation, and many were frustrated by the need to change their workflow., Limitations: Most surgeon participants were male, white, had >12 years in practice, and used Epic electronic medical record systems. Therefore, they may not represent the perspectives of all US colon and rectal surgeons. In addition, as the synoptic operative report is implemented more broadly across the United States, it will be important to consider variations in the process by electronic medical record system., Conclusions: The synoptic operative report for rectal cancer was easy to implement and incorporate into workflow, in general, but surgeons remained concerned about additional burden without immediate and tangible value. Despite recognizing benefits, many participants indicated they only implemented the synoptic operative report because it was mandated by the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B735MOTIVACIONES Y BARRERAS HACIA LA IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE UN INFORME OPERATIVO SINÓPTICO DE CÁNCER RECTAL: UNA EVALUACIÓN DEL PROCESOANTECEDENTES:Se ha demostrado que el uso de informes sinópticos mejora la documentación de información crítica y proporciona un valor agregado relacionado con el acceso y extracción de datos, la confiabilidad de los datos, los detalles relevantes y la integridad de la información. La aceptación y adopción de informes sinópticos por parte de los cirujanos se ha quedado rezagada con respecto a otras especialidades.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el proceso de implementación de un informe operativo sinóptico.DISEÑO:Evaluación de procesos de métodos mixtos que incluyen encuestas y entrevistas cualitativas.AJUSTES:Prácticas de cirugía colorrectal en los Estados Unidos.PACIENTES:Veintiocho cirujanos colorrectales certificados por la junta.INTERVENCIONES:Implementación del informe operatorio sinóptico de cáncer de recto.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Aceptabilidad, viabilidad y usabilidad medidas por preguntas de encuestas tipo Likert y seguidas con entrevistas individuales para obtener experiencias con la implementación, así como motivaciones y barreras para el uso.RESULTADOS:Entre todos los participantes del estudio, 28 cirujanos completaron la encuesta electrónica (tasa de respuesta del 76%) y 21 (57%) completaron la entrevista telefónica. La usabilidad media fue 4,14 (rango = 1-5, error estándar (EE) = 0,15), la factibilidad media fue 3,90 (EE = 0,15) y la aceptabilidad fue 3,98 (EE = 0,18). Los participantes indicaron que se necesitaba un apoyo administrativo y técnico sustancial, pero que no siempre estaba disponible para la implementación y muchos se sintieron frustrados por la necesidad de cambiar su flujo de trabajo.LIMITACIONES:La mayoría de los cirujanos participantes eran hombres, blancos, tenían >12 años en la práctica y usaban sistemas de registros médicos electrónicos de Epic. Por lo tanto, es posible que no representen las perspectivas de todos los cirujanos de colon y recto de EE. UU. Además, a medida que el informe operativo sinóptico se implemente de manera más amplia en los EE. UU., Será importante considerar las variaciones en el proceso por sistema EMR.CONCLUSIONES:El informe quirúrgico sinóptico para el cáncer de recto fue en general fácil de implementar e incorporar en el flujo de trabajo, pero los cirujanos seguían preocupados por la carga adicional sin valor inmediato y tangible. A pesar de reconocer los beneficios, muchos participantes indicaron que solo implementaron el informe operativo sinóptico porque era un mandato del Programa Nacional de Acreditación para el Cáncer de Recto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B735 (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo)., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.)

Background: The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer is a collaborative effort to improve the quality of rectal cancer care, including multidisciplinary assessment, treatment planning, and documentation using synoptic radiology, pathology, and operative reports., Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the implementation and use of a synoptic operative report for rectal cancer., Design: This was a convergent mixed-methods implementation study of electronic medical record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews., Settings: The study was conducted at US medical centers., Participants: Colorectal surgeons were included., Intervention: After development, the synoptic operative report was iteratively revised and ultimately approved by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Executive Council and the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer and then implemented into participants' institutional electronic medical record systems., Main Outcome Measures: Change in fidelity to documentation of 19 critical items after implementation of synoptic reports and in-depth details and perspectives about the synoptic operative report were measured., Results: Thirty-seven surgeons from 14 institutions submitted preimplementation operative reports (n = 180); 32 of 37 surgeons submitted postimplementation reports (n = 118). The operation type, approach, and formation of a stoma were present in >70% of preimplementation reports; however, the location of the tumor, the type of reconstruction, and the distal margin were reported in <50%. Each item was present in ≥89% of postimplementation reports. Twenty eight of 37 participants completed the survey, and 21 of 37 participants completed qualitative interviews. Emergent themes included concerns for additional burden and time constraints using the synoptic report themselves, as well as errors or absent information in traditional narrative operative reports of other surgeons., Limitations: The study was limited by its sample size, cross-sectional nature, specialized centers, and inclusion of colorectal surgeons only., Conclusions: Although fidelity to the 19 items substantially increased after implementation of the synoptic report, reactions to the synoptic report varied among surgeons. Many indicated concerns that it would hinder workflow or add extra time burden. Others felt the synoptic report could indirectly improve rectal cancer quality of care and provide useful data for quality improvement and research. More work is needed to update and improve the synoptic operative report and streamline the workflow. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B100. IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE UN INFORME OPERATIVO SINÓPTICO PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: UN ESTUDIO UTILIZANDO MÉTODOS MIXTOS: El Programa Nacional de Acreditación para el Cáncer Rectal es una iniciativa de colaboración para mejorar la calidad de la atención del cáncer rectal, utilizando evaluación multidisciplinaria, planificación del tratamiento y documentación mediante radiología sinóptica, patología e informes quirúrgicos.Examinar la implementación y el uso de un informe operativo sinóptico para el cáncer de recto.Estudio de implementación de métodos mixtos convergentes de datos de registros médicos electrónicos, encuestas y entrevistas cualitativas.Centros médicos de los Estados Unidos.Cirujanos colorrectales.Después de su formulación, el informe operativo sinóptico fue revisado de forma iterativa y finalmente aprobado por el Consejo Ejecutivo de la Sociedad Americana de Cirujanos de Colon y Rectal y el Programa Nacional de Acreditación para el Cáncer Rectal. Posteriormente, se implementó en los sistemas de registros médicos electrónicos institucionales de los participantes.Cambios en la precisión de documentación de 19 ítems críticos después de la implementación de informes sinópticos; Revisión de detalles y perspectivas en a profundidad sobre el informe operativo sinóptico.Treinta y siete cirujanos de 14 instituciones presentaron informes operativos previos a la implementación (n = 180); 32/37 cirujanos presentaron informes posteriores a la implementación (n = 118). El tipo de operación, el enfoque y la formación de un estoma estuvieron presentes en > 70% de los informes previos a la implementación; sin embargo, la ubicación del tumor, el tipo de reconstrucción y el margen distal se informaron en <50%. Cada ítem estuvo presente en > 89% de los informes posteriores a la implementación. 28/37 participantes completaron la encuesta y 21/37 participantes completaron entrevistas cualitativas. Los temas emergentes incluyeron preocupaciones por la carga adicional y las limitaciones de tiempo usando el informe sinóptico en sí, y errores o información ausente en los informes operativos narrativos tradicionales de otros cirujanos.Tamaño de la muestra, estudio transversal, centros especializados, cirujanos colorrectales solamente.Aunque la fidelidad a los 19 ítems aumentó sustancialmente después de la implementación del informe sinóptico, las reacciones al informe sinóptico variaron entre los cirujanos. Muchos indicaron preocupaciones de que obstaculizaría el flujo de trabajo o agregaría una carga de tiempo adicional. Otros consideraron que el informe sinóptico podría mejorar indirectamente la calidad de la atención del cáncer de recto y proporcionar datos útiles para la mejora de la calidad y la investigación. Se necesita más trabajo para actualizar y mejorar el informe operativo sinóptico y agilizar el flujo de trabajo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B100. (Traducción-Dr. Adrian E. Ortega).

The AO CMF has recently launched the first comprehensive classification system for craniomaxillofacial (CMF) fractures. The AO CMF classification system uses a hierarchical framework with three levels of growing complexity (levels 1, 2, and 3). Level 1 of the system identifies the presence of fractures in four anatomic areas (mandible, midface, skull base, and cranial vault). Level 2 variables describe the location of the fractures within those defined areas. Level 3 variables describe details of fracture morphology such as fragmentation, displacement, and dislocation. This multiplanar radiographic image-based AO CMF trauma classification system is constantly evolving and beginning to enter worldwide application. A validation of the system is mandatory prior to a reliable communication and data processing in clinical and research environments. This interobserver reliability and accuracy study is aiming to validate the three current modules of the AO CMF classification system for mandible trauma in adults. To assess the performance of the system at the different precision levels, it focuses on the fracture location within the mandibular regions and condylar process subregions as core components giving only secondary attention to morphologic variables. A total of 15 subjects individually assigned the location and features of mandibular fractures in 200 CT scans using the AO CMF classification system. The results of these ratings were then statistically evaluated for interobserver reliability by Fleiss' kappa and accuracy by percentage agreement with an experienced reference assessor. The scores were used to determine if the variables of levels 2 and 3 were appropriate tools for valid classification. Interobserver reliability and accuracy were compared by hierarchy of variables (level 2 vs. level 3), by anatomical region and subregion, and by assessor experience level using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests. The AO CMF classification system was determined to be reliable and accurate for classifying mandibular fractures for most levels 2 and 3 variables. Level 2 variables had significantly higher interobserver reliability than level 3 variables (median kappa: 0.69 vs. 0.59, p  < 0.001) as well as higher accuracy (median agreement: 94 vs. 91%, p  < 0.001). Accuracy was adequate for most variables, but lower reliability was observed for condylar head fractures, fragmentation of condylar neck fractures, displacement types and direction of the condylar process overall, as well as the condylar neck and base fractures. Assessors with more clinical experience demonstrated higher reliability (median kappa high experience 0.66 vs. medium 0.59 vs. low 0.48, p  < 0.001). Assessors with experience using the classification software also had higher reliability than their less experienced counterparts (median kappa: 0.76 vs. 0.57, p  < 0.001). At present, the AO CMF classification system for mandibular fractures is suited for both clinical and research settings for level 2 variables. Accuracy and reliability decrease for level 3 variables specifically concerning fractures and displacement of condylar process fractures. This will require further investigation into why these fractures were characterized unreliably, which would guide modifications of the system and future instructions for its usage., (© Thieme Medical Publishers.)

Background: Southeast Asia is undergoing a transition from infectious to chronic diseases, including a dramatic increase in adult cancers. Childhood cancer research in Thailand has focused predominantly on leukemias and lymphomas or only examined children for a short period of time. This comprehensive multisite study examined childhood cancer incidence and survival rates in Thailand across all International Classification of Childhood Cancer (ICCC) groups over a 20-year period., Methods: Cancer cases diagnosed in children ages 0-19 years (n = 3574) from 1990 to 2011 were extracted from five provincial population-based Thai registries, covering approximately 10% of the population. Descriptive statistics of the quality of the registries were evaluated. Age-standardized incidence rates (ASRs) were calculated using the Segi world standard population, and relative survival was computed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Changes in incidence and survival were analyzed using Joinpoint Regression and reported as annual percent changes (APC)., Results: The ASR of all childhood cancers during the study period was 98.5 per million person-years with 91.0 per million person-years in 1990-2000 and 106.2 per million person-years in 2001-2011. Incidence of all childhood cancers increased significantly (APC = 1.2%, P < 0.01). The top three cancer groups were leukemias, brain tumors, and lymphomas. The 5-year survival for all childhood cancers significantly improved from 39.4% in 1990-2000 to 47.2% in 2001-2011 (P < 0.01)., Conclusions: Both childhood cancer incidence and survival rates have increased, suggesting improvement in the health care system as more cases are identified and treated. Analyzing childhood cancer trends in low- and middle-income countries can improve understanding of cancer etiology and pediatric health care disparities., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)