Evaluating the evaluators: does C-SATS measure up?

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Robert B Laverty, Charles H Chesnut, Joseph R Karam, Joseph C L'Huillier, Alexander Bonte, Julie M Clanahan, Jisuk Park, Brian Yoon, Robert W Krell
{"title":"Evaluating the evaluators: does C-SATS measure up?","authors":"Robert B Laverty, Charles H Chesnut, Joseph R Karam, Joseph C L'Huillier, Alexander Bonte, Julie M Clanahan, Jisuk Park, Brian Yoon, Robert W Krell","doi":"10.1007/s00464-025-12150-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Robotic-assisted surgery has increased in prevalence, particularly in general surgery. The number of cases required to achieve adequate proficiency in robotic surgery, however, and the training metrics that correlate best with proficiency remain unclear. We sought to better define proficiency-based benchmarks in robotic-assisted cholecystectomies (RAC) and inguinal hernia repairs (RIHR) using a commercial crowd source based on competency platform.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multi-institutional cohort study in which 48 surgeons (senior residents, fellows, and practicing physicians) submitted representative videos of themselves performing a RAC and/or RIHR. Subjects subsequently underwent blinded case video reviews using the C-SATS platform, which utilizes the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) rubric. Participating surgeons self-reported surgical case volume. Primary outcome was correlation of GEARS scores with historic procedure case volume. Secondary outcomes included construct validity of GEARS scores as an operative proficiency metric.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total GEARS scores and historical case volume showed positive correlation for both RAC (r = 0.65, p < 0.0001) and RIHR (r = 0.54, p = 0.001) among all performers. On subgroup analysis, no correlation was seen for resident/fellow physicians (r = 0.39, p = 0.11 for RAC; r = 0.22, p = 0.49 for RIHR) or those with < 50 historic case volume (r = 0.14, p = 0.55 for RAC; r = 0.21, p = 0.54 for RIHR). No difference in total GEARS scores was seen between resident/fellow and practicing physicians for either RAC (20.21 v 20.25, p = 0.82) or RIHR (20.45 v 20.46, p = 0.95), nor in those with < 50 or ≥ 50 historic case volume in RAC (20.16 v 20.33, p = 0.33) and RIHR (20.35 v 20.49, p = 0.48). GEARS scores by domain (bimanual dexterity, depth perception, efficiency, force sensitivity, and robotic control) and surgical step (exposure of triangle of calot, clipping and division of cystic artery/duct, and dissection of gallbladder; mobilizing peritoneal flap, hernia sac dissection, and mesh placement) were similar across both groups (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>C-SATS-derived GEARS scores correlated to overall surgeon historical case volume for RA cholecystectomy and IHR, but not among novice performers. This methodology was unable to differentiate between novice and expert performers for these procedures. There remains a need for high-fidelity and discerning robotic skills evaluation platforms for trainees and novice surgeons.</p>","PeriodicalId":22174,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-025-12150-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Robotic-assisted surgery has increased in prevalence, particularly in general surgery. The number of cases required to achieve adequate proficiency in robotic surgery, however, and the training metrics that correlate best with proficiency remain unclear. We sought to better define proficiency-based benchmarks in robotic-assisted cholecystectomies (RAC) and inguinal hernia repairs (RIHR) using a commercial crowd source based on competency platform.

Methods: Multi-institutional cohort study in which 48 surgeons (senior residents, fellows, and practicing physicians) submitted representative videos of themselves performing a RAC and/or RIHR. Subjects subsequently underwent blinded case video reviews using the C-SATS platform, which utilizes the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) rubric. Participating surgeons self-reported surgical case volume. Primary outcome was correlation of GEARS scores with historic procedure case volume. Secondary outcomes included construct validity of GEARS scores as an operative proficiency metric.

Results: Total GEARS scores and historical case volume showed positive correlation for both RAC (r = 0.65, p < 0.0001) and RIHR (r = 0.54, p = 0.001) among all performers. On subgroup analysis, no correlation was seen for resident/fellow physicians (r = 0.39, p = 0.11 for RAC; r = 0.22, p = 0.49 for RIHR) or those with < 50 historic case volume (r = 0.14, p = 0.55 for RAC; r = 0.21, p = 0.54 for RIHR). No difference in total GEARS scores was seen between resident/fellow and practicing physicians for either RAC (20.21 v 20.25, p = 0.82) or RIHR (20.45 v 20.46, p = 0.95), nor in those with < 50 or ≥ 50 historic case volume in RAC (20.16 v 20.33, p = 0.33) and RIHR (20.35 v 20.49, p = 0.48). GEARS scores by domain (bimanual dexterity, depth perception, efficiency, force sensitivity, and robotic control) and surgical step (exposure of triangle of calot, clipping and division of cystic artery/duct, and dissection of gallbladder; mobilizing peritoneal flap, hernia sac dissection, and mesh placement) were similar across both groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: C-SATS-derived GEARS scores correlated to overall surgeon historical case volume for RA cholecystectomy and IHR, but not among novice performers. This methodology was unable to differentiate between novice and expert performers for these procedures. There remains a need for high-fidelity and discerning robotic skills evaluation platforms for trainees and novice surgeons.

评估评估者:C-SATS合格吗?
导读:机器人辅助手术越来越普遍,特别是在普通外科手术中。然而,达到足够熟练的机器人手术所需的病例数量,以及与熟练程度最佳相关的培训指标仍不清楚。我们试图使用基于能力平台的商业人群资源,更好地定义机器人辅助胆囊切除术(RAC)和腹股沟疝修补术(RIHR)的熟练基准。方法:多机构队列研究,其中48名外科医生(高级住院医师、研究员和执业医师)提交了他们进行RAC和/或RIHR的代表性视频。受试者随后使用C-SATS平台进行盲法病例视频审查,该平台利用机器人技能全球评估评估(GEARS)标准。参与的外科医生自行报告手术病例量。主要结局是GEARS评分与历史手术病例量的相关性。次要结果包括GEARS评分作为操作熟练度指标的结构效度。结果:两种RAC的GEARS总分与历史病例量呈正相关(r = 0.65, p 0.05)。结论:c - sat衍生的GEARS评分与RA胆囊切除术和IHR的外科医生历史总病例量相关,但与新手无关。这种方法无法区分这些程序的新手和专家表演者。对于培训生和外科新手来说,仍然需要高保真度和分辨力强的机器人技能评估平台。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
12.90%
发文量
890
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Uniquely positioned at the interface between various medical and surgical disciplines, Surgical Endoscopy serves as a focal point for the international surgical community to exchange information on practice, theory, and research. Topics covered in the journal include: -Surgical aspects of: Interventional endoscopy, Ultrasound, Other techniques in the fields of gastroenterology, obstetrics, gynecology, and urology, -Gastroenterologic surgery -Thoracic surgery -Traumatic surgery -Orthopedic surgery -Pediatric surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信