Early surgeon impressions and technical difficulty associated with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: A Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons learning center study

Arsalla Islam, Antonio O. Castellvi, Seifu T. Tesfay, Alejandro D. Castellvi, Andrew S. Wright, Daniel J. Scott

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Interest in laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) is growing rapidly among surgeons. This study aimed to characterize current surgeon impressions about LESS and to determine the relative difficulty of performing a simulated LESS task using a multiport access device. Methods: This study was conducted at the 2009 Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Learning Center. The 56 study participants were asked to complete pre- and post-test questionnaires regarding their level of training, prior clinical experience, and opinions about LESS. Technical skill performance was evaluated using the standardized fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery Peg Transfer task scored according to time and error metrics. The participants completed three repetitions: conventional laparoscopy (LAP), LESS with nonarticulated instruments (LESS Straight), and LESS with articulated instruments (LESS Articulating). Results: Complete data were collected for 45 (80%) of the 56 participants, which included 27 practicing surgeons, nine minimally invasive surgery (MIS) fellows, seven residents, and two allied health professionals. Five surgeons (LESS experienced) had managed at least one LESS case in the preceding 6 months. Participants rated their comfort with LESS as 2.0 ± 1.2 (5-point scale, 1 = very uncomfortable). Compared with conventional laparoscopy, the participants indicated that LESS had 97% better cosmesis, 25% decreased postoperative pain, 18% faster recovery, 97% more demanding, 73% increased rate of complications, and 82% anticipated wide adoption. They all indicated a readiness to offer LESS to their patients if appropriately trained. Peg Transfer performance was significantly worse for LESS than for LAP (40-65% performance decline), and for LESS Articulating than for LESS Straight (44% performance decline). Construct validity for the LESS simulated tasks was supported because the LESS-experienced scores were significantly better than the LESS-nonexpert scores. Conclusion: Despite the increased technical difficulty associated with the LESS approach, surgeons are enthusiastic about offering these techniques and seeking additional training. Robust simulation-based methods that foster skill acquisition through repetitive practice and verification of proficiency are needed such that safe adoption may be fostered.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2597-2603
Number of pages7
JournalSurgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
Volume25
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2011

Fingerprint

Learning
Laparoscopy
Surgeons
Allied Health Personnel
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Postoperative Pain

Keywords

  • Construct validity
  • Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery
  • LESS
  • Patient safety
  • Proficiency
  • Simulation
  • Single-incision laparoscopy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Early surgeon impressions and technical difficulty associated with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery : A Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons learning center study. / Islam, Arsalla; Castellvi, Antonio O.; Tesfay, Seifu T.; Castellvi, Alejandro D.; Wright, Andrew S.; Scott, Daniel J.

In: Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, Vol. 25, No. 8, 08.2011, p. 2597-2603.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4127826da1df4a1ca29b48875f31a4af,
title = "Early surgeon impressions and technical difficulty associated with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: A Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons learning center study",
abstract = "Background: Interest in laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) is growing rapidly among surgeons. This study aimed to characterize current surgeon impressions about LESS and to determine the relative difficulty of performing a simulated LESS task using a multiport access device. Methods: This study was conducted at the 2009 Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Learning Center. The 56 study participants were asked to complete pre- and post-test questionnaires regarding their level of training, prior clinical experience, and opinions about LESS. Technical skill performance was evaluated using the standardized fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery Peg Transfer task scored according to time and error metrics. The participants completed three repetitions: conventional laparoscopy (LAP), LESS with nonarticulated instruments (LESS Straight), and LESS with articulated instruments (LESS Articulating). Results: Complete data were collected for 45 (80{\%}) of the 56 participants, which included 27 practicing surgeons, nine minimally invasive surgery (MIS) fellows, seven residents, and two allied health professionals. Five surgeons (LESS experienced) had managed at least one LESS case in the preceding 6 months. Participants rated their comfort with LESS as 2.0 ± 1.2 (5-point scale, 1 = very uncomfortable). Compared with conventional laparoscopy, the participants indicated that LESS had 97{\%} better cosmesis, 25{\%} decreased postoperative pain, 18{\%} faster recovery, 97{\%} more demanding, 73{\%} increased rate of complications, and 82{\%} anticipated wide adoption. They all indicated a readiness to offer LESS to their patients if appropriately trained. Peg Transfer performance was significantly worse for LESS than for LAP (40-65{\%} performance decline), and for LESS Articulating than for LESS Straight (44{\%} performance decline). Construct validity for the LESS simulated tasks was supported because the LESS-experienced scores were significantly better than the LESS-nonexpert scores. Conclusion: Despite the increased technical difficulty associated with the LESS approach, surgeons are enthusiastic about offering these techniques and seeking additional training. Robust simulation-based methods that foster skill acquisition through repetitive practice and verification of proficiency are needed such that safe adoption may be fostered.",
keywords = "Construct validity, Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, LESS, Patient safety, Proficiency, Simulation, Single-incision laparoscopy",
author = "Arsalla Islam and Castellvi, {Antonio O.} and Tesfay, {Seifu T.} and Castellvi, {Alejandro D.} and Wright, {Andrew S.} and Scott, {Daniel J.}",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1007/s00464-011-1594-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "2597--2603",
journal = "Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques",
issn = "0930-2794",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Early surgeon impressions and technical difficulty associated with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery

T2 - A Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons learning center study

AU - Islam, Arsalla

AU - Castellvi, Antonio O.

AU - Tesfay, Seifu T.

AU - Castellvi, Alejandro D.

AU - Wright, Andrew S.

AU - Scott, Daniel J.

PY - 2011/8

Y1 - 2011/8

N2 - Background: Interest in laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) is growing rapidly among surgeons. This study aimed to characterize current surgeon impressions about LESS and to determine the relative difficulty of performing a simulated LESS task using a multiport access device. Methods: This study was conducted at the 2009 Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Learning Center. The 56 study participants were asked to complete pre- and post-test questionnaires regarding their level of training, prior clinical experience, and opinions about LESS. Technical skill performance was evaluated using the standardized fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery Peg Transfer task scored according to time and error metrics. The participants completed three repetitions: conventional laparoscopy (LAP), LESS with nonarticulated instruments (LESS Straight), and LESS with articulated instruments (LESS Articulating). Results: Complete data were collected for 45 (80%) of the 56 participants, which included 27 practicing surgeons, nine minimally invasive surgery (MIS) fellows, seven residents, and two allied health professionals. Five surgeons (LESS experienced) had managed at least one LESS case in the preceding 6 months. Participants rated their comfort with LESS as 2.0 ± 1.2 (5-point scale, 1 = very uncomfortable). Compared with conventional laparoscopy, the participants indicated that LESS had 97% better cosmesis, 25% decreased postoperative pain, 18% faster recovery, 97% more demanding, 73% increased rate of complications, and 82% anticipated wide adoption. They all indicated a readiness to offer LESS to their patients if appropriately trained. Peg Transfer performance was significantly worse for LESS than for LAP (40-65% performance decline), and for LESS Articulating than for LESS Straight (44% performance decline). Construct validity for the LESS simulated tasks was supported because the LESS-experienced scores were significantly better than the LESS-nonexpert scores. Conclusion: Despite the increased technical difficulty associated with the LESS approach, surgeons are enthusiastic about offering these techniques and seeking additional training. Robust simulation-based methods that foster skill acquisition through repetitive practice and verification of proficiency are needed such that safe adoption may be fostered.

AB - Background: Interest in laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) is growing rapidly among surgeons. This study aimed to characterize current surgeon impressions about LESS and to determine the relative difficulty of performing a simulated LESS task using a multiport access device. Methods: This study was conducted at the 2009 Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Learning Center. The 56 study participants were asked to complete pre- and post-test questionnaires regarding their level of training, prior clinical experience, and opinions about LESS. Technical skill performance was evaluated using the standardized fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery Peg Transfer task scored according to time and error metrics. The participants completed three repetitions: conventional laparoscopy (LAP), LESS with nonarticulated instruments (LESS Straight), and LESS with articulated instruments (LESS Articulating). Results: Complete data were collected for 45 (80%) of the 56 participants, which included 27 practicing surgeons, nine minimally invasive surgery (MIS) fellows, seven residents, and two allied health professionals. Five surgeons (LESS experienced) had managed at least one LESS case in the preceding 6 months. Participants rated their comfort with LESS as 2.0 ± 1.2 (5-point scale, 1 = very uncomfortable). Compared with conventional laparoscopy, the participants indicated that LESS had 97% better cosmesis, 25% decreased postoperative pain, 18% faster recovery, 97% more demanding, 73% increased rate of complications, and 82% anticipated wide adoption. They all indicated a readiness to offer LESS to their patients if appropriately trained. Peg Transfer performance was significantly worse for LESS than for LAP (40-65% performance decline), and for LESS Articulating than for LESS Straight (44% performance decline). Construct validity for the LESS simulated tasks was supported because the LESS-experienced scores were significantly better than the LESS-nonexpert scores. Conclusion: Despite the increased technical difficulty associated with the LESS approach, surgeons are enthusiastic about offering these techniques and seeking additional training. Robust simulation-based methods that foster skill acquisition through repetitive practice and verification of proficiency are needed such that safe adoption may be fostered.

KW - Construct validity

KW - Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery

KW - LESS

KW - Patient safety

KW - Proficiency

KW - Simulation

KW - Single-incision laparoscopy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80051693753&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80051693753&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-011-1594-4

DO - 10.1007/s00464-011-1594-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 21359887

AN - SCOPUS:80051693753

VL - 25

SP - 2597

EP - 2603

JO - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques

JF - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 8

ER -