Search

Purpose: The current operative report often inadequately reflects events occurring during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The addition of intraoperative video recording to the operative report has already proven to add important information. It was hypothesized that real-time intraoperative voice dictation (RIVD) can provide an equal or more complete overview of the operative procedure compared to the narrative operative report (NR) produced postoperatively. Methods: SONAR is a multicenter prospective observational trial, conducted at four surgical centers in the Netherlands. Elective LCs of patients aged 18 years and older were included. Participating surgeons were requested to dictate the essential steps of LC during surgery. RIVDs and NRs were reviewed according to the stepwise LC guideline of the Dutch Society for Surgery. The cumulative adequacy rates for RIVDs were compared with those of the postoperatively written NR. Results: 79 of 90 cases were eligible for inclusion and available for further analysis. RIVD resulted in a significantly higher adequacy rate compared to NR for the circumferential dissection of the cystic duct and artery (NR 32.5% vs. RIVD 61.0%, P = 0.016). NR had higher adequacy rates in reporting the transection of the cystic duct (NR 100% vs. RIVD 77.9%, P = < 0.001) and the removal of the gallbladder from the liver bed (NR 98.7% vs. RIVD 68.8%, P < 0.001). The total adequacy was not significantly different between the two reporting methods (NR 78.0% vs. RIVD 76.4%, P = 1.00). Conclusion: Overall, the adequacy of RIVD is comparable to the postoperatively written NR in reporting surgical steps in LC. However, the most essential surgical step, the circumferential dissection of the cystic duct and artery, was reported more adequately in RIVD.

The availability of intraoperative multimedia recording is increasing. Considering the growing call for physicians’ accountability, it is inevitable that multimedia will play an important role in aiding quality control by improving the adequacy of operative reporting. However, the perspectives of medical professionals on this matter are poorly known. In this cross-disciplinary survey, we aimed to investigate the current viewpoints concerning the use of multimedia recording in the operating room. We conducted an electronic survey among all affiliated members of the Association of Surgeons of the Netherlands, the Dutch Urological Association and the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology containing questions regarding current use of intraoperative recording and the level of likelihood or objection for certain scenarios. The response rate was 27.8%. The survey encompasses 370 (54.5%) surgeons, 71 (10.5%) urologists, 80 (11.8%) gynecologists, and 158 (23.3%) residents in training. 52.4% of respondents feel that the currently used operative report is insufficient for future quality requirements. 58.5% think it is unlikely they would behave differently during surgery when intra-operative video recording is applied. 82.8% think it is unlikely that their surgical methods would be altered. 63.8% of respondents preferred only video registration when intraoperative recording is implemented. The majority of respondents agree that the current method of operative reporting is insufficient for future quality requirements. There is support for intraoperative video recording, however, legal transparency is needed before either intraoperative video or audio recording could be implemented to protect not only the patients, but also the healthcare providers.