Top

Published in:

Open Access 23-04-2024 | Minimally Invasive Surgery

Structured feedback and operative video debriefing with critical view of safety annotation in training of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study

Authors: Amila Cizmic, Frida Häberle, Philipp A. Wise, Felix Müller, Felix Gabel, Pietro Mascagni, Babak Namazi, Martin Wagner, Daniel A. Hashimoto, Amin Madani, Adnan Alseidi, Thilo Hackert, Beat P. Müller-Stich, Felix Nickel

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 6/2024

Abstract

Background

The learning curve in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is lengthened compared to open surgery. It has been reported that structured feedback and training in teams of two trainees improves MIS training and MIS performance. Annotation of surgical images and videos may prove beneficial for surgical training. This study investigated whether structured feedback and video debriefing, including annotation of critical view of safety (CVS), have beneficial learning effects in a predefined, multi-modal MIS training curriculum in teams of two trainees.

Methods

This randomized-controlled single-center study included medical students without MIS experience (n = 80). The participants first completed a standardized and structured multi-modal MIS training curriculum. They were then randomly divided into two groups (n = 40 each), and four laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs) were performed on ex-vivo porcine livers each. Students in the intervention group received structured feedback after each LC, consisting of LC performance evaluations through tutor-trainee joint video debriefing and CVS video annotation. Performance was evaluated using global and LC-specific Objective Structured Assessments of Technical Skills (OSATS) and Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) scores.

Results

The participants in the intervention group had higher global and LC-specific OSATS as well as global and LC-specific GOALS scores than the participants in the control group (25.5 ± 7.3 vs. 23.4 ± 5.1, p = 0.003; 47.6 ± 12.9 vs. 36 ± 12.8, p < 0.001; 17.5 ± 4.4 vs. 16 ± 3.8, p < 0.001; 6.6 ± 2.3 vs. 5.9 ± 2.1, p = 0.005). The intervention group achieved CVS more often than the control group (1. LC: 20 vs. 10 participants, p = 0.037, 2. LC: 24 vs. 8, p = 0.001, 3. LC: 31 vs. 8, p < 0.001, 4. LC: 31 vs. 10, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Structured feedback and video debriefing with CVS annotation improves CVS achievement and ex-vivo porcine LC training performance based on OSATS and GOALS scores.

Qu H, Liu Y, He QS (2014) Short- and long-term results of laparoscopic versus open anti-reflux surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Surg 18(6):1077–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2492-6CrossRefPubMed

Agha R, Muir G (2003) Does laparoscopic surgery spell the end of the open surgeon? J R Soc Med 96(11):544–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680309601107CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pucher PH, Sodergren MH, Singh P, Darzi A, Parakseva P (2013) Have we learned from lessons of the past? A systematic review of training for single incision laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 27(5):1478–1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2632-6CrossRefPubMed

Hung AJ, Chen J, Shah A, Gill IS (2018) Telementoring and telesurgery for minimally invasive procedures. J Urol 199(2):355–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.06.082CrossRefPubMed

Liceaga A, Fernandes LF, Romeo A, Gagstatter F (2013) Romeo’s gladiator rule: knots, stitches and knot tying techniques: a tutorial based on a few simple rules; new concepts to teach suturing techniques in laparoscopic surgery. Endo-Press, Tuttlingen

Kowalewski KF, Garrow CR, Proctor T, Preukschas AA, Friedrich M, Müller PC et al (2018) LapTrain: multi-modality training curriculum for laparoscopic cholecystectomy—results of a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 32(9):3830–3838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6110-7CrossRefPubMed

Schmidt MW, Kowalewski KF, Trent SM, Benner L, Müller-Stich BP, Nickel F (2020) Self-directed training with e-learning using the first-person perspective for laparoscopic suturing and knot tying: a randomised controlled trial: learning from the surgeon’s real perspective. Surg Endosc 34(2):869–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06842-7CrossRefPubMed

Yu P, Pan J, Wang Z, Shen Y, Li J, Hao A et al (2022) Quantitative influence and performance analysis of virtual reality laparoscopic surgical training system. BMC Med Educ 22(1):92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03150-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Nickel F, Brzoska JA, Gondan M, Rangnick HM, Chu J, Kenngott HG et al (2015) Virtual reality training versus blended learning of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial with laparoscopic novices. Medicine 94(20):e764–e764. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000000764CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Kowalewski KF, Hendrie JD, Schmidt MW, Garrow CR, Bruckner T, Proctor T et al (2017) Development and validation of a sensor- and expert model-based training system for laparoscopic surgery: the iSurgeon. Surg Endosc 31(5):2155–2165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5213-2CrossRefPubMed

11.

Yiannakopoulou E, Nikiteas N, Perrea D, Tsigris C (2015) Virtual reality simulators and training in laparoscopic surgery. Int J Surg 13:60–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.11.014CrossRefPubMed

12.

Snyderman CH, Gardner PA, Lanisnik B, Ravnik J (2016) Surgical telementoring: a new model for surgical training. Laryngoscope 126(6):1334–1338. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25753CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kowalewski K-F, Hendrie JD, Schmidt MW, Proctor T, Paul S, Garrow CR et al (2017) Validation of the mobile serious game application Touch Surgery™ for cognitive training and assessment of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 31(10):4058–4066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5452-xCrossRefPubMed

14.

Luck J, Hachach-Haram N, Greenfield M, Smith O, Billingsley M, Heyes R et al (2017) Augmented reality in undergraduate surgical training: the PROXIMIE pilot. Int J Surg 47:S1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.08.029CrossRef

15.

Roch PJ, Rangnick HM, Brzoska JA, Benner L, Kowalewski KF, Muller PC et al (2018) Impact of visual-spatial ability on laparoscopic camera navigation training. Surg Endosc 32(3):1174–1183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5789-1CrossRefPubMed

16.

Vajsbaher T, Ziemer T, Schultheis H (2020) A multi-modal approach to cognitive training and assistance in minimally invasive surgery. Cogn Syst Res 64:57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2020.07.005CrossRef

17.

Felinska EA, Fuchs TE, Kogkas A, Chen ZW, Otto B, Kowalewski KF et al (2023) Telestration with augmented reality improves surgical performance through gaze guidance. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09859-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Kowalewski KF, Garrow CR, Schmidt MW, Benner L, Muller-Stich BP, Nickel F (2019) Sensor-based machine learning for workflow detection and as key to detect expert level in laparoscopic suturing and knot-tying. Surg Endosc 33(11):3732–3740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06667-4CrossRefPubMed

19.

Wild C, Lang F, Gerhäuser AS, Schmidt MW, Kowalewski KF, Petersen J et al (2022) Telestration with augmented reality for visual presentation of intraoperative target structures in minimally invasive surgery: a randomized controlled study. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09158-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Nickel F, Hendrie JD, Kowalewski K-F, Bruckner T, Garrow CR, Mantel M et al (2016) Sequential learning of psychomotor and visuospatial skills for laparoscopic suturing and knot tying—a randomized controlled trial “The Shoebox Study” DRKS00008668. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401(6):893–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1421-4CrossRefPubMed

21.

Ahlborg L, Weurlander M, Hedman L, Nisel H, Lindqvist PG, Felländer-Tsai L et al (2015) Individualized feedback during simulated laparoscopic training:a mixed methods study. Int J Med Educ 6:93–100. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.55a2.218bCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Atkinson A, Watling CJ, Brand PLP (2022) Feedback and coaching. Eur J Pediatr 181(2):441–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-021-04118-8CrossRefPubMed

23.

O’Connell L, McKevitt K, Khan W, Waldron R, Khan I, Barry K (2020) Impact of targeted trainer feedback via video review on trainee performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgeon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2020.08.011CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Ghaderi I, Tran T, Carton M, Samamé J, Galvani C (2021) The impact of intensive laparoscopic training course with structured assessment and immediate feedback on residents’ operative performance in animal lab. Surg Endosc 35(7):3370–3378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07778-zCrossRefPubMed

25.

Sterz J, Linßen S, Stefanescu MC, Schreckenbach T, Seifert LB, Ruesseler M (2021) Implementation of written structured feedback into a surgical OSCE. BMC Med Educ 21(1):192. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02581-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Hira S, Singh D, Kim TS, Gupta S, Hager G, Sikder S et al (2022) Video-based assessment of intraoperative surgical skill. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 17(10):1801–1811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-022-02681-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Singh P, Aggarwal R, Tahir M, Pucher PH, Darzi A (2015) A Randomized controlled study to evaluate the role of video-based coaching in training laparoscopic skills. Ann Surg 261(5):862–869. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000000857CrossRefPubMed

28.

Mascagni P, Rodríguez-Luna MR, Urade T, Felli E, Pessaux P, Mutter D et al (2021) Intraoperative time-out to promote the implementation of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a video-based assessment of 343 procedures. J Am Coll Surg 233(4):497–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.06.018CrossRefPubMed

29.

Madani A, Namazi B, Altieri MS, Hashimoto DA, Rivera AM, Pucher PH et al (2022) Artificial intelligence for intraoperative guidance: using semantic segmentation to identify surgical anatomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 276(2):363–369. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000004594CrossRefPubMed

30.

Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ et al (2012) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 10(1):28–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001CrossRefPubMed

31.

Pape-Koehler C, Chmelik C, Aslund AM, Heiss MM (2010) An interactive and multimedia-based manual of surgical procedures: Webop–an approach to improve surgical education. Zentralbl Chir 135(5):467–471. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1262538CrossRefPubMed

32.

Mutter D, Vix M, Dallemagne B, Perretta S, Leroy J, Marescaux J (2011) WeBSurg: an innovative educational Web site in minimally invasive surgery–principles and results. Surg Innov 18(1):8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350611398880CrossRefPubMed

33.

Lucas S, Tuncel A, Bensalah K, Zeltser I, Jenkins A, Pearle M et al (2008) Virtual reality training improves simulated laparoscopic surgery performance in laparoscopy naive medical students. J Endourol 22(5):1047–1051. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2007.0366CrossRefPubMed

34.

Hiemstra E, Kolkman W, Wolterbeek R, Trimbos B, Jansen FW (2011) Value of an objective assessment tool in the operating room. Can J Surg 54(2):116–122. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.032909CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Wang J, Fan X, Qin S, Shi K, Zhang H, Yu F (2022) Exploration of the efficacy of radiomics applied to left ventricular tomograms obtained from D-SPECT MPI for the auxiliary diagnosis of myocardial ischemia in CAD. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 38(2):465–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10554-021-02413-xCrossRefPubMed

36.

Mascagni P, Vardazaryan A, Alapatt D, Urade T, Emre T, Fiorillo C et al (2022) Artificial intelligence for surgical safety: automatic assessment of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy using deep learning. Ann Surg 275(5):955–961. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000004351CrossRefPubMed

37.

Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, Bergman S, Leffondré K, Stanbridge D et al (2005) A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 190(1):107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.04.004CrossRefPubMed

38.

Willuth E, Hardon SF, Lang F, Haney CM, Felinska EA, Kowalewski KF et al (2021) Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08373-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Kowalewski K-F, Minassian A, Hendrie JD, Benner L, Preukschas AA, Kenngott HG et al (2019) One or two trainees per workplace for laparoscopic surgery training courses: results from a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 33(5):1523–1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6440-5CrossRefPubMed

40.

de Angelis N, Marchegiani F, Schena CA, Khan J, Agnoletti V, Ansaloni L et al (2023) Training curriculum in minimally invasive emergency digestive surgery: 2022 WSES position paper. World J Emerg Surg 18(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00476-wCrossRef

41.

Kowalewski KF, Seifert L, Kohlhas L, Schmidt MW, Ali S, Fan C et al (2023) Video-based training of situation awareness enhances minimally invasive surgical performance: a randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 37(6):4962–4973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10006-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Yoshida S, Miyano G, Tanaka M, Ikegami M, Kato H, Seo S et al (2021) Cadaver Training for Minimally Invasive Pediatric Surgery: A Preliminary Report. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 31(12):1485–1490. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2021.0333CrossRefPubMed

43.

Lehr EJ, Guy TS, Smith RL, Grossi EA, Shemin RJ, Rodriguez E et al (2016) Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery III: training and robotic-assisted approaches. Innovations (Phila) 11(4):260–267. https://doi.org/10.1097/imi.0000000000000299CrossRefPubMed

44.

Falcioni AG, Yang HC, Maricic MA, Rodriguez SP, Bailez MM (2022) Effectiveness of telesimulation for pediatric minimally invasive surgery essential skills training. J Pediatr Surg 57(6):1092–1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2022.01.041CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Hamad GG, Brown MT, Clavijo-Alvarez JA (2007) Postoperative video debriefing reduces technical errors in laparoscopic surgery. Am J Surg 194(1):110–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.10.027CrossRefPubMed

46.

Ketel MHM, Klarenbeek BR, Eddahchouri Y, Cheong E, Cuesta MA, van Daele E et al (2023) A video-based procedure-specific competency assessment tool for minimally invasive esophagectomy. JAMA Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6522CrossRef

47.

Gupta V (2023) How to achieve the critical view of safety for safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy: technical aspects. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 27(2):201–210. https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.22-064CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Jin Y, Liu R, Chen Y, Liu J, Zhao Y, Wei A et al (2022) Critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective investigation from both cognitive and executive aspects. Front Surg 9:946917. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.946917CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Manatakis DK, Antonopoulou MI, Tasis N, Agalianos C, Tsouknidas I, Korkolis DP et al (2023) Critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of current evidence and future perspectives. World J Surg 47(3):640–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06842-0CrossRefPubMed

50.

Yamashita Y, Kimura T, Matsumoto S (2010) A safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy depends upon the establishment of a critical view of safety. Surg Today 40(6):507–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-009-4218-zCrossRefPubMed

51.

Fahrner R, Turina M, Neuhaus V, Schöb O (2012) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy as a teaching operation: comparison of outcome between residents and attending surgeons in 1,747 patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg 397(1):103–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-011-0863-yCrossRefPubMed

52.

Sgaramella LI, Gurrado A, Pasculli A, de Angelis N, Memeo R, Prete FP et al (2021) The critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: strasberg yes or no? An Italian Multicentre study. Surg Endosc 35(7):3698–3708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07852-6CrossRefPubMed

53.

Way LW, Stewart L, Gantert W, Liu K, Lee CM, Whang K et al (2003) Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries: analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychology perspective. Ann Surg 237(4):460–469. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.Sla.0000060680.92690.E9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Terho P, Sallinen V, Lampela H, Harju J, Koskenvuo L, Mentula P (2021) The critical view of safety and bile duct injuries in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a photo evaluation study on 1532 patients. HPB (Oxford) 23(12):1824–1829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2021.04.017CrossRefPubMed

55.

Hopper AN, Jamison MH, Lewis WG (2007) Learning curves in surgical practice. Postgrad Med J 83(986):777–779. https://doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.2007.057190CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Daley BJ, Cecil W, Clarke CP, Cofer JB, Guillamondegui OD (2015) How slow is too slow? Correlation of operative time to complications: an analysis from the Tennessee surgical quality collaborative. J Am Coll Surg 220(4):550–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.12.040CrossRefPubMed

57.

Procter LD, Davenport DL, Bernard AC, Zwischenberger JB (2010) General surgical operative duration is associated with increased risk-adjusted infectious complication rates and length of hospital stay. J Am Coll Surg 210(1):60–6562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.09.034CrossRefPubMed

58.

Ingraham AM, Richards KE, Hall BL, Ko CY (2010) Quality improvement in surgery: the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program approach. Adv Surg 44:251–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yasu.2010.05.003CrossRefPubMed

59.

Ko CY, Martin G, Dixon-Woods M (2022) Three observations for improving efforts in surgical quality improvement. JAMA Surg 157(12):1073–1074. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2022.3122CrossRefPubMed

60.

Ko CY, Shah T, Nelson H, Nathens AB (2022) Developing the American college of surgeons quality improvement framework to evaluate local surgical improvement efforts. JAMA Surg 157(8):737–739. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2022.1826CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

61.

Laplante S, Namazi B, Kiani P, Hashimoto DA, Alseidi A, Pasten M et al (2023) Validation of an artificial intelligence platform for the guidance of safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 37(3):2260–2268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09439-9CrossRefPubMed

62.

Maier-Hein L, Eisenmann M, Sarikaya D, März K, Collins T, Malpani A et al (2022) Surgical data science - from concepts toward clinical translation. Med Image Anal 76:102306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2021.102306CrossRefPubMed

63.

Clanton J, Gardner A, Cheung M, Mellert L, Evancho-Chapman M, George RL (2014) The relationship between confidence and competence in the development of surgical skills. J Surg Educ 71(3):405–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2013.08.009CrossRefPubMed

64.

Yurko YY, Scerbo MW, Prabhu AS, Acker CE, Stefanidis D (2010) Higher mental workload is associated with poorer laparoscopic performance as measured by the NASA-TLX Tool. Simul Healthcare 5(5):267–271. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3181e3f329CrossRef

65.

Forgione A, Kislov V, Guraya SY, Kasakevich E, Pugliese R (2015) Safe introduction of laparoscopic colorectal surgery even in remote areas of the world: the value of a comprehensive telementoring training program. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 25(1):37–42. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2014.0191CrossRefPubMed

66.

Herrera-Almario GE, Kirk K, Guerrero VT, Jeong K, Kim S, Hamad GG (2016) The effect of video review of resident laparoscopic surgical skills measured by self- and external assessment. Am J Surg 211(2):315–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.05.039CrossRefPubMed

67.

van Dalen A, van Haperen M, Swinkels JA, Grantcharov TP, Schijven MP (2021) Development of a model for video-assisted postoperative team debriefing. J Surg Res 257:625–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.07.065CrossRefPubMed

Title: Structured feedback and operative video debriefing with critical view of safety annotation in training of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study
Authors: Amila Cizmic
Frida Häberle
Philipp A. Wise
Felix Müller
Felix Gabel
Pietro Mascagni
Babak Namazi
Martin Wagner
Daniel A. Hashimoto
Amin Madani
Adnan Alseidi
Thilo Hackert
Beat P. Müller-Stich
Felix Nickel
Publication date: 23-04-2024
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Minimally Invasive Surgery
Cholecystectomy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 6/2024
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-10843-6

Short-term outcomes of robotic tumor-specific mesorectal resection of rectal cancer: surgical techniques in mesorectal division using rolling division of the mesorectum

Rectal Cancer
Dynamic Manuscript

A prospective case series to evaluate subcostal nerve injury with high-resolution ultrasound in posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy

Open Access
Adrenalectomy

Predictors of surgical difficulty according to surgical proficiency in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Prostatectomy

SAGES guidelines for the use of laparoscopy during pregnancy

Open Access
Appendicitis
SAGES/EAES Official Publication

Novel gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection training model enhances the endoscopic submucosal dissection skills of trainees: a multicenter comparative study

Endoscopy

Efficacy and safety of salvage endoscopy in the treatment of residual or recurrent colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopy
Review Article

Mastering chronic pancreatitis pain: A multidisciplinary approach and practical solutions

Webinar | 06-02-2024 | 20:00 (CET)

Severe pain is the most common symptom of chronic pancreatitis. In this webinar, experts share the latest insights in pain management for chronic pancreatitis patients. Experts from a range of disciplines discuss pertinent cases and provide practical suggestions for use within clinical practice.

Keynote series | Spotlight on menopause

Springer Medicine

Structured feedback and operative video debriefing with critical view of safety annotation in training of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Other articles of this Issue 6/2024

Short-term outcomes of robotic tumor-specific mesorectal resection of rectal cancer: surgical techniques in mesorectal division using rolling division of the mesorectum

A prospective case series to evaluate subcostal nerve injury with high-resolution ultrasound in posterior retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy

Predictors of surgical difficulty according to surgical proficiency in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

SAGES guidelines for the use of laparoscopy during pregnancy

Novel gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection training model enhances the endoscopic submucosal dissection skills of trainees: a multicenter comparative study

Efficacy and safety of salvage endoscopy in the treatment of residual or recurrent colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mastering chronic pancreatitis pain: A multidisciplinary approach and practical solutions

Keynote series | Spotlight on menopause

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content