Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 5/2014

01-05-2014

International consensus on safe techniques and error definitions in laparoscopic surgery

Authors: Esther M. Bonrath, Nicolas J. Dedy, Boris Zevin, Teodor P. Grantcharov

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 5/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Definitions of errors and poor technique in laparoscopic surgery are lacking in modern clinical practice. As a result, educators often base their teaching on personal experience and individual preferences. The objective of this study was to achieve expert consensus regarding these definitions in order to provide a framework for a standardized approach to teaching safe technique and avoiding common errors in laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

A Delphi survey was conducted with an international panel of experts in laparoscopic surgery. Survey items for definitions and examples of errors and resulting injuries (events) were derived from literature reviews and procedural observations. An online platform was used to administer the survey. Experts were requested to rate their level of agreement regarding survey items on a 5-point Likert-type scale; additional comments were facilitated through free-text entries. Consensus was defined as Cronbach’s α > 0.70. Items that were rated ≥3 (“somewhat agree”) by 75 % or more of the panel were included in the consensus list. The Delphi process was continued until all subsections of the survey met the defined consensus level.

Results

Two survey rounds were completed with 33 experts from 12 countries (round 1) and 25 experts from nine countries (round 2). Overall consensus was high for both rounds (α = 0.9). Seventeen definitions and 39 examples of errors and events were included in the final consensus list.

Conclusions

Standardized definitions and examples of technical errors in laparoscopic surgery were established using a consensus-based approach. These definitions can serve as uniform nomenclature and can be used by educators as a reference guide to ensure standardization in surgical training and performance assessment.
Literature
1.
Dent TL (1991) Training, credentialling, and granting of clinical privileges for laparoscopic general surgery. Am J Surg 161:399–403PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
4.
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons SAGES (1991) Granting of privileges for laparoscopic general surgery. Am J Surg 161:324–325CrossRef
5.
European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (1994) Training and assessment of competence. Surg Endosc 8:721–722CrossRef
6.
7.
Abboudi M, Ahmed K, Kirby R, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Challacombe B (2011) Mentorship programmes for laparoscopic and robotic urology. BJU Int 107:1869–1871PubMedCrossRef
8.
Entezami P, Franzblau LE, Chung KC (2012) Mentorship in surgical training: a systematic review. Hand (N Y) 7:30–36CrossRef
9.
Cuschieri A (2003) Medical errors, incidents, accidents and violations. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 12:111–120PubMedCrossRef
10.
Bonrath EM, Dedy NJ, Zevin B, Grantcharov TP (2013) Defining technical errors in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 27(8):2678–2691PubMedCrossRef
11.
Duffield C (1993) The Delphi technique: a comparison of results obtained using two expert panels. Int J Nurs Stud 30:227–237PubMedCrossRef
12.
Hsu CC, Sandford BA (2007) The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. PARE 12(10):1–8
13.
Palter VN, MacRae HM, Grantcharov TP (2011) Development of an objective evaluation tool to assess technical skill in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a Delphi methodology. Am J Surg 201:251–259PubMedCrossRef
14.
Graham B, Regehr G, Wright JG (2003) Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. J Clin Epidemiol 56:1150–1156PubMedCrossRef
15.
Williams CK, Carnahan H (2013) Development and validation of tools for assessing use of personal protective equipment in health care. Am J Infect Control 41:28–32PubMedCrossRef
16.
Pastor AC, Osman F, Teitelbaum DH, Caty MG, Langer JC (2009) Development of a standardized definition for Hirschsprung’s-associated enterocolitis: a Delphi analysis. J Pediatr Surg 44:251–256PubMedCrossRef
17.
Morgenstern L (2005) A continuing challenge: the training of laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Innov 12:289–290PubMedCrossRef
18.
Aggarwal R, Moorthy K, Darzi A (2004) Laparoscopic skills training and assessment. Br J Surg 91:1549–1558PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zendejas B, Brydges R, Wang AT, Cook DA (2013) Patient outcomes in simulation-based medical education: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 28(8):1078–1089PubMedCrossRef
20.
Nunobe S, Hiki N, Tanimura S, Nohara K, Sano T, Yamaguchi T (2013) The clinical safety of performing laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer by trainees after sufficient experience in assisting. World J Surg 37:424–429PubMedCrossRef
21.
Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CF, Askham J, Marteau T (1998) Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess 2:i–iv, 1–88PubMed
22.
Linstone HA, Turoff M (eds) (1975) The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, Boston
23.
Delbecq AL, Gustafson DH, Van de Ven AH (1975) Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott Foresman, Glenview
24.
Powell C (2002) The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs 41:376–382CrossRef
25.
26.
Witkin BR, Altschuld JW (1995) Planning and conducting needs assessments: a practical guide. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
27.
28.
Bonrath EM, Zevin B, Dedy NJ, Grantcharov TP (2013) Error rating tool to identify and analyse technical errors and events in laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 100(8):1080–1088PubMedCrossRef
29.
Joice P, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1998) Errors enacted during endoscopic surgery—a human reliability analysis. Appl Ergon 29:409–414PubMedCrossRef
30.
Talebpour M, Alijani A, Hanna GB, Moosa Z, Tang B, Cuschieri A (2009) Proficiency-gain curve for an advanced laparoscopic procedure defined by observation clinical human reliability assessment (OCHRA). Surg Endosc 23:869–875PubMedCrossRef
31.
Tang B, Hanna GB, Joice P, Cuschieri A (2004) Identification and categorization of technical errors by observational clinical human reliability assessment (OCHRA) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 139:1215–1220PubMedCrossRef
32.
Tang B, Hanna GB, Bax NM, Cuschieri A (2004) Analysis of technical surgical errors during initial experience of laparoscopic pyloromyotomy by a group of Dutch pediatric surgeons. Surg Endosc 18:1716–1720PubMedCrossRef
33.
McKee M, Priest P, Ginzler M, Black N (1991) How representative are members of expert panels? Qual Assur Health Care 3:89–94PubMedCrossRef
34.
Kastein MR, Jacobs M, Van der Hell RH, Luttik K, Touw-Otten FWMM (1993) Delphi, the issue of reliability: a qualitative Delphi study in primary health care in the Netherlands. Technol Forecast Soc Change 44:315–323CrossRef
35.
36.
Mead D (1991) An evaluation tool for primary nursing. Nurs Stand 6:37–39PubMed
37.
de Villiers MR, de Villiers PJ, Kent AP (2005) The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Med Teach 27:639–643PubMedCrossRef
38.
Okoli C, Pawlowski SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inform Manage 42:15–29CrossRef
39.
40.
Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS (eds) (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system, 6th edn. National Academies Press, Washington
41.
Regenbogen SE, Greenberg CC, Studdert DM, Lipsitz SR, Zinner MJ, Gawande AA (2007) Patterns of technical error among surgical malpractice claims: an analysis of strategies to prevent injury to surgical patients. Ann Surg 246(5):705–711PubMedCrossRef
42.
Barach P, Johnson JK, Ahmad A, Galvan C, Bognar A, Duncan R, Starr JP, Bacha EA (2008) A prospective observational study of human factors, adverse events, and patient outcomes in surgery for pediatric cardiac disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 136(6):1422–1428PubMedCrossRef
43.
Pugh C, Plachta S, Auyang E, Pryor A, Hungness E (2010) Outcome measures for surgical simulators: is the focus on technical skills the best approach? Surgery 147(5):646–654PubMedCrossRef
44.
Hamad GG, Brown MT, Clavijo-Alvarez JA (2007) Postoperative video debriefing reduces technical errors in laparoscopic surgery. Am J Surg 194(1):110–114PubMedCrossRef
45.
Ahlberg G, Enochsson L, Gallagher AG, Hedman L, Hogman C, McClusky DA 3rd, Ramel S, Smith CD, Arvidsson D (2007) Proficiency-based virtual reality training significantly reduces the error rate for residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Am J Surg 193(6):797–804PubMedCrossRef
46.
Reason JT (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p xv, 302CrossRef
47.
Tang B, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (2005) Analysis of errors enacted by surgical trainees during skills training courses. Surgery 138(1):14–20PubMedCrossRef
48.
Sarker SK, Chang A, Vincent C, Darzi AW (2005) Technical skills errors in laparoscopic cholecystectomy by expert surgeons. Surg Endosc 19(6):832–835PubMedCrossRef
49.
Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, Satava RM (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236(4):458–463 discussion 463–454PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
International consensus on safe techniques and error definitions in laparoscopic surgery
Authors
Esther M. Bonrath
Nicolas J. Dedy
Boris Zevin
Teodor P. Grantcharov
Publication date
01-05-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 5/2014
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3348-y

Other articles of this Issue 5/2014

Surgical Endoscopy 5/2014 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

The inulin hydrogen breath test predicts the quality of colonic preparation

OriginalPaper

Performance analysis on physical simulator of four different instrument setups in laparo-endoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery

OriginalPaper

Endoscopic simulator curriculum improves colonoscopy performance in novice surgical interns as demonstrated in a swine model

OriginalPaper

Endoscopic resection of sporadic duodenal adenomas: comparison of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) techniques and the risks of late delayed bleeding

OriginalPaper

Modified laparoscopic intragastric surgery and endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric stromal tumor originating from the muscularis propria

OriginalPaper

Causes of small bowel obstruction after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a review of 2,395 cases at a single institution