TY - JOUR
T1 - SAGES safe cholecystectomy modules improve practicing surgeons' judgment
T2 - results of a randomized, controlled trial
AU - SAGES Safe Chole Task Force
AU - Weis, Joshua
AU - Brunt, L. Michael
AU - Madani, Amin
AU - Telem, Dana
AU - Nagaraj, Madhuri
AU - Asbun, Horacio
AU - Davis, Brian R.
AU - Dissanaike, Sharmila
AU - Ujiki, Michael B.
AU - Westcott, Carl J.
AU - Alseidi, Adnan
AU - Aggarwal, Rajesh
AU - Bailey, Robert
AU - Barrett, Allison
AU - Berci, George
AU - Butash, Ali
AU - Deziel, Daniel
AU - Fingerhut, Abe
AU - Gee, Denise
AU - Gill, Sujata
AU - Hanna, Angela
AU - Holden, Sara
AU - Jeyarajah, Dhiresh
AU - Lee, Tommy
AU - Mcdonald, Marian
AU - Mesleh, Marc
AU - Moreno-Paquentin, Eduardo
AU - Vargas, Mauricio Pasten
AU - Pucci, Michael
AU - Pucher, Philip
AU - Santos, Byron
AU - Singh, Ranbir
AU - Stefanidis, Dimitrios
AU - Stoikes, Nathaniel
AU - Tsamalaidze, Levan
AU - Vazquez, Richard
AU - Wakabayashi, Go
AU - Wasco, Kevin
AU - Watson, Mark
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2023/2
Y1 - 2023/2
N2 - Background: Despite the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, major bile duct injury (BDI) rates during this operation remain unacceptably high. In October 2018, SAGES released the Safe Cholecystectomy modules, which define specific strategies to minimize the risk of BDI. This study aims to investigate whether this curriculum can change the knowledge and behaviors of surgeons in practice. Methods: Practicing surgeons were recruited from the membership of SAGES and the American College of Surgeons Advisory Council for Rural Surgery. All participants completed a baseline assessment (pre-test) that involved interpreting cholangiograms, troubleshooting difficult cases, and managing BDI. Participants' dissection strategies during cholecystectomy were also compared to the strategies of a panel of 15 experts based on accuracy scores using the Think Like a Surgeon validated web-based platform. Participants were then randomized to complete the Safe Cholecystectomy modules (Safe Chole module group) or participate in usually scheduled CME activities (control group). Both groups completed repeat assessments (post-tests) one month after randomization. Results: Overall, 41 participants were eligible for analysis, including 18 Safe Chole module participants and 23 controls. The two groups had no significant differences in pre-test scores. However, at post-test, Safe Chole module participants made significantly fewer errors managing BDI and interpreting cholangiograms. Safe Chole module participants were less likely to convert to an open operation on the post-test than controls when facing challenging dissections. However, Safe Chole module participants displayed a similar incidence of errors when evaluating adequate critical views of safety. Conclusions: In this randomized-controlled trial, the SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy modules improved surgeons' abilities to interpret cholangiograms and safely manage BDI. Additionally, surgeons who studied the modules were less likely to convert to open during difficult dissections. These data show the power of the Safe Cholecystectomy modules to affect practicing surgeons' behaviors in a measurable and meaningful way.
AB - Background: Despite the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, major bile duct injury (BDI) rates during this operation remain unacceptably high. In October 2018, SAGES released the Safe Cholecystectomy modules, which define specific strategies to minimize the risk of BDI. This study aims to investigate whether this curriculum can change the knowledge and behaviors of surgeons in practice. Methods: Practicing surgeons were recruited from the membership of SAGES and the American College of Surgeons Advisory Council for Rural Surgery. All participants completed a baseline assessment (pre-test) that involved interpreting cholangiograms, troubleshooting difficult cases, and managing BDI. Participants' dissection strategies during cholecystectomy were also compared to the strategies of a panel of 15 experts based on accuracy scores using the Think Like a Surgeon validated web-based platform. Participants were then randomized to complete the Safe Cholecystectomy modules (Safe Chole module group) or participate in usually scheduled CME activities (control group). Both groups completed repeat assessments (post-tests) one month after randomization. Results: Overall, 41 participants were eligible for analysis, including 18 Safe Chole module participants and 23 controls. The two groups had no significant differences in pre-test scores. However, at post-test, Safe Chole module participants made significantly fewer errors managing BDI and interpreting cholangiograms. Safe Chole module participants were less likely to convert to an open operation on the post-test than controls when facing challenging dissections. However, Safe Chole module participants displayed a similar incidence of errors when evaluating adequate critical views of safety. Conclusions: In this randomized-controlled trial, the SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy modules improved surgeons' abilities to interpret cholangiograms and safely manage BDI. Additionally, surgeons who studied the modules were less likely to convert to open during difficult dissections. These data show the power of the Safe Cholecystectomy modules to affect practicing surgeons' behaviors in a measurable and meaningful way.
KW - Bile duct injury
KW - Education
KW - Safety
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85137040367&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00464-022-09503-4
DO - 10.1007/s00464-022-09503-4
M3 - Article
C2 - 36006521
AN - SCOPUS:85137040367
SN - 0930-2794
VL - 37
SP - 862
EP - 870
JO - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
JF - Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques
IS - 2
ER -