Top

Published in:

01-01-2022 | Cholecystectomy

The educational quality of the critical view of safety in videos on youtube® versus specialized platforms: which is better? Critical view of safety in virtual resources

Authors: Antonio Marmolejo Chavira, Jorge Farell Rivas, Ana Paula Ruiz Funes Molina, Sergio Ayala de la Cruz, Alejandro Cruz Zárate, Alfonso Bandin Musa, Víctor José Cuevas Osorio

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Introduction

The surgical education has evolved by adopting the visual platforms as a resource of searching. The videos complement the visual learning of surgical techniques of trainees, residents, and surgeons. YouTube® is the most frequently consulted platform in the surgical field. WebSurg® and GIBLIB® are two recognized medical platforms. The Critical View of Safety (CVS) is the most important and effective method to reduce the risk of bile duct injury (BDI) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Reaching a satisfactory CVS is a crucial point. We evaluated the CVS of videos on WebSurg® and GIBLIB®, comparing the results with those of the worldwide most popular video platform.

Methods

We performed a search under the term “Laparoscopic cholecystectomy” on the virtual platforms YouTube®, GIBLIB®, and WebSurg®. Three evaluators reviewed the 77 selected videos using the “Sanford-Strasberg’ CVS score.” The inferential analysis was performed between two groups: YouTube® and Non-YouTube (GIBLIB® and WebSurg®). The characteristics of each video were analyzed including country of origin, type of profile, number of views, and number of Likes.

Results

Satisfactory CVS obtained from each of the platforms was GIBLIB® 40%; WebSurg® 44.4%; YouTube® 27.7%. The comparative analysis of CVS quality and CVS score for the Non-YouTube and YouTube® groups did not show a significant difference (p = 0.142, p = 0.377, respectively).

Conclusion

The videos on GIBLIB® and WebSurg® offer a higher probability of satisfactory CVS compared to YouTube®. Nevertheless, there is no significant superiority of GIBLIB® and WebSurg® over YouTube®.

Pugh CM, Andrew Watson M (2009) Surgical Education in the Internet Era. J Surg Res 182:177–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2009.03.021CrossRef

Rapp AK, Healy MG, Charlton ME et al (2016) YouTube is the Most Frequently Used Educational Video Source for Surgical Preparation. J Surg Educ 73:1072–1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.04.024CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

(2020) MerchDope. https://merchdope.com/youtube-stats/

Alexa Internet, Inc. The top 500 sites on the web. https://www.alexa.com/topsites.

Balakrishnan JGM (2017) Social media addiction: What is the role of content in YouTube? J Behav Addict 6:364–377. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.058CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

WebSurg. https://websurg.com/en/contribute/new

Mutter D, Vix M, Dallemagne BD et al (2011) WeBSurg : An Innovative Educational Web Site in Minimally Invasive Surgery — Principles and Results. IRCAD World View Innov 18:8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350611398880CrossRef

Michelson G (2019) MICHELSON 20MM. https://20mm.org/2019/08/09/an-interview-with-brian-conyer-of-giblib/

GIBLIB. https://app.giblib.com/surgical

10.

Decker MR, Dodgion CKA (2014) Specialization and the Current Practices of General Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 218:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.08.016CrossRefPubMed

11.

Van De Graaf FW, Zaïmi I, Stassen LPS et al (2018) Safe Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review of Bile Duct Injury Prevention. Int J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.11.006CrossRefPubMed

12.

Club TSS (1991) A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies: The southern surgeons club. N Engl J Med 324:1073–1078. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199104183241601CrossRef

13.

Strasberg SM, Hertl MSN (1995) An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 180:101–125PubMed

14.

Strasberg SMBL (2010) Rationale and Use of the Critical View of Safety in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Am Coll Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.02.053CrossRef

15.

Singh RLBM (2018) Critical view of safety — its feasibility and efficacy in preventing bile duct injuries. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg. https://doi.org/10.21037/ales.2017.12.04CrossRef

16.

Buddingh KT, Nieuwenhuijs VB, Van Buuren L, Hulscher JBF, De Jong JS, Van Dam GM (2011) Intraoperative assessment of biliary anatomy for prevention of bile duct injury: A review of current and future patient safety interventions. Surg Endosc 25:2449–2461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1639-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Pucher PH et al (2015) SAGES expert Delphi consensus: critical factors for safe surgical practice in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 29:3074–3085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4079-zCrossRefPubMed

18.

Sanford DE SS (2014) A Simple Effective Method for Generation of a Permanent Record of the Critical View of Safety during Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy by Intraoperative “ Doublet ” Photography. Am Coll Surg 170–178

19.

Plaisier PW, Pauwels MMALJ (2001) Quality control in laparoscopic cholecystectomy : operation notes, video or photo print ? HPB 3:197–199CrossRef

20.

Emous M, Westerterp M, Wind J, Eerenberg JP, Van GAAW (2010) Registering the critical view of safety photo or video ? Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-0997-yCrossRefPubMed

21.

Mascagni P, Fiorillo C, Urade T et al (2019) Formalizing video documentation of the Critical View of Safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy : a step towards artificial intelligence assistance to improve surgical safety. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07149-3CrossRefPubMed

22.

Brunt LM, Deziel DJ, Telem DA, Strasberg SM, Aggarwal R, Asbun H, Bonjer J, McDonald M, Alseidi A, Ujiki M, Riall TS, Hammill C, Moulton CA, Pucher PH, Parks RW, Ansari MT, Connor S, Dirks RC, Anderson B, Altieri MS, Tsamalaidze L, Stefanidis D (2020) Safe Cholecystectomy Multi-society Practice Guideline and State of the Art Consensus Conference on Prevention of Bile Duct Injury During Cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 272: 3–23 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003791

23.

Gupta V, Jain G (2019) Safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Adoption of universal culture of safety in cholecystectomy. World J Gastrointest Surg 11:62–84. https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v11.i2.62CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

SAGES. https://www.sages.org/safe-cholecystectomy-program/

25.

Heistermann HP, Tobusch APD (2006) Der Sicherheits-Blick ‘‘ als Beitrag zur Risikoreduktion bei der laparoskopischen Cholezystektomie. Zentralbl Chir 131:460–465. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-957031CrossRefPubMed

26.

Avgerinos C, Kelgiorgi D, Touloumis Z et al (2009) One Thousand Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies in a Single Surgical Unit Using the “ Critical View of Safety ” Technique. J Gastrointest Surg 13:498–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0748-8CrossRefPubMed

27.

Tsalis K, Antoniou N, Koukouritaki Z et al (2015) Open-access Technique and “Critical View of Safety” as the Safest Way to Perform Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 25:119–124CrossRef

28.

Nijssen MAJ, Schreinemakers JMJ, Meyer Z et al (2015) Complications After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy : A Video Evaluation Study of Whether the Critical View of Safety was Reached. World J Surg 39:1798–1803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-2993-9CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kaya B, Fersahoglu MM, Kilic F et al (2017) Importance of critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy : a survey of 120 serial patients, with no incidence of complications. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 21:17–20CrossRef

30.

Costamagna GBI (2013) Current treatment of benign biliary strictures. Ann Gastroenterol 26:37–40PubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Giménez ME, Houghton EJ, Zeledón ME et al (2018) The critical view of safety prevents the appearance of biliary injuries? Analysis of a survey, ABCD Arq Bras Cir Dig, p 31

32.

Deal SBAA (2017) Concerns of Quality and Safety in Public Domain Surgical Education Videos: An Assessment of the Critical View of Safety in Frequently Used Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Videos. J Am Coll Surg 225:725–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.08.016CrossRefPubMed

33.

Rodriguez H, Young MT, Jackson HT et al (2017) Viewer discretion advised: is YouTube a friend or foe in surgical education? Surg Endosc 32:1724–1728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5853-xCrossRefPubMed

34.

Ferhatoglu MF, Kartal AFA (2019) Comparison of New Era ’ s Education Platforms, YouTube ® and WebSurg ®, in Sleeve Gastrectomy. Obes Surg 29:3472–3477CrossRef

35.

Strasberg SM, Pucci MJ, Brunt LM, Deziel DJ (2016) Subtotal Cholecystectomy-"Fenestrating" vs “reconstituting” Subtypes and the Prevention of Bile Duct Injury: Definition of the Optimal Procedure in Difficult Operative Conditions. J Am Coll Surg 222:89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.09.019CrossRefPubMed

36.

Strasberg SM (2019) A three-step conceptual roadmap for avoiding bile duct injury in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an invited perspective review. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 26:123–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.616CrossRefPubMed

37.

Allemann P, Schafer M, Demartines N (2010) Critical appraisal of single port access cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7189CrossRefPubMed

38.

de Favaro M (2018) Single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Technical aspects and results. Arq Bras Cir Dig 31:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020180001e1388CrossRef

39.

Evers L, Bouvy N, Branje D, Peeters A (2017) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 31:3437–3448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5381-0CrossRefPubMed

Title: The educational quality of the critical view of safety in videos on youtube® versus specialized platforms: which is better? Critical view of safety in virtual resources
Authors: Antonio Marmolejo Chavira
Jorge Farell Rivas
Ana Paula Ruiz Funes Molina
Sergio Ayala de la Cruz
Alejandro Cruz Zárate
Alfonso Bandin Musa
Víctor José Cuevas Osorio
Publication date: 01-01-2022
Publisher: Springer US
Keyword: Cholecystectomy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08286-4

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

The educational quality of the critical view of safety in videos on youtube® versus specialized platforms: which is better? Critical view of safety in virtual resources

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Minimally invasive Heller myotomy with partial posterior fundoplication for the treatment of achalasia: long-term results from a tertiary referral center

Patient's compliance is a contributor to failure of extended antithrombotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: prospective cohort study

Correction to: One‑anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) with fxed bypass of the proximal two meters versus tailored bypass of the proximal one‑third of small bowel: short‑term outcomes

Behaviour at the peritoneal interface of next-generation prosthetic materials for hernia repair

Open versus laparoscopic umbilical and epigastric hernia repair: nationwide data on short- and long-term outcomes

Correction to: Ergonomic analysis of laparoscopic and robotic surgical task performance at various experience levels