INTRODUCTION: The object of this study was to compare the technical ability of general surgery and urology trainees to perform a small bowel anastomosis using a life-like bench model. METHODS: Forty subjects were divided into two groups based on the stage of their training. Specialist registrars (SpRs) trained for 1 to 3 years were defined as junior SpRs, and those with 4 to 6 years of training were defined as senior SpRs. They were asked to perform a small bowel anastomosis on a standard latex model using the same equipment, suture material, and standardized instructions. Trainees were assessed by three trained observers based on a global rating scale. RESULTS: Interrater reliability was 0.83 for the general surgical group and 0.88 for the urology group. The median scores obtained by the junior SpRs were lower than those achieved by the senior SpRs, and general surgical trainees consistently performed better than their matched urology group. This difference reached statistical significance for the senior group. CONCLUSIONS: Global rating scores provide a reliable, valid method for assessing technical skills between specialties when performing a small bowel anastomosis. We provide reasons why general surgeons may be more proficient at this task than urologists. These findings have possible application to identifying trainees who need additional training and may also provide a mechanism to ensure competence in this task.
INTRODUCTION: The object of this study was to compare the technical ability of general surgery and urology trainees to perform a small bowel anastomosis using a life-like bench model. METHODS: Forty subjects were divided into two groups based on the stage of their training. Specialist registrars (SpRs) trained for 1 to 3 years were defined as junior SpRs, and those with 4 to 6 years of training were defined as senior SpRs. They were asked to perform a small bowel anastomosis on a standard latex model using the same equipment, suture material, and standardized instructions. Trainees were assessed by three trained observers based on a global rating scale. RESULTS: Interrater reliability was 0.83 for the general surgical group and 0.88 for the urology group. The median scores obtained by the junior SpRs were lower than those achieved by the senior SpRs, and general surgical trainees consistently performed better than their matched urology group. This difference reached statistical significance for the senior group. CONCLUSIONS: Global rating scores provide a reliable, valid method for assessing technical skills between specialties when performing a small bowel anastomosis. We provide reasons why general surgeons may be more proficient at this task than urologists. These findings have possible application to identifying trainees who need additional training and may also provide a mechanism to ensure competence in this task.