BACKGROUND: Technical errors, a distinct subcomponent of surgical proficiency, have a significant impact on patient safety and clinical outcomes. To date, only a few studies have been designed to describe and evaluate these errors. This review was performed to assess technical errors described in laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: A literature search of Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and OVID databases (1946-2012, week 14) using the terms "technical/medical error," "technical skill," and "adverse event" in combination with the terms "laparoscopy/laparoscopic surgery" was conducted. English language peer review articles with a description of technical errors were included. Opinion papers, reviews, and articles not addressing laparoscopic surgery were excluded. RESULTS: The search returned 2,282 articles. Application of the inclusion criteria reduced the number of articles to 21. Of these 21 articles, 14 (67 %) were observational studies, 3 (14 %) were randomized trials, 2 (10 %) were prospective interventional studies, and 2 (10 %) were retrospective analyses. Eight articles (38 %) applied error analysis as an approach to determine error rates within routine procedures. The remaining 13 articles (62 %) used the assessment of errors to describe and quantify surgical skill in an educational setting. CONCLUSIONS: A number of approaches for the assessment of surgical technical errors exist. The error definitions vary greatly, making a comparison of error rates between groups impossible. Complexity of scale design and subjectivity in ratings have resulted in limited use of these scores outside the experimental setting. To facilitate error analysis as a self-assessment method of continuous learning and quality control, further research and better tools are required.
BACKGROUND: Technical errors, a distinct subcomponent of surgical proficiency, have a significant impact on patient safety and clinical outcomes. To date, only a few studies have been designed to describe and evaluate these errors. This review was performed to assess technical errors described in laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: A literature search of Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and OVID databases (1946-2012, week 14) using the terms "technical/medical error," "technical skill," and "adverse event" in combination with the terms "laparoscopy/laparoscopic surgery" was conducted. English language peer review articles with a description of technical errors were included. Opinion papers, reviews, and articles not addressing laparoscopic surgery were excluded. RESULTS: The search returned 2,282 articles. Application of the inclusion criteria reduced the number of articles to 21. Of these 21 articles, 14 (67 %) were observational studies, 3 (14 %) were randomized trials, 2 (10 %) were prospective interventional studies, and 2 (10 %) were retrospective analyses. Eight articles (38 %) applied error analysis as an approach to determine error rates within routine procedures. The remaining 13 articles (62 %) used the assessment of errors to describe and quantify surgical skill in an educational setting. CONCLUSIONS: A number of approaches for the assessment of surgical technical errors exist. The error definitions vary greatly, making a comparison of error rates between groups impossible. Complexity of scale design and subjectivity in ratings have resulted in limited use of these scores outside the experimental setting. To facilitate error analysis as a self-assessment method of continuous learning and quality control, further research and better tools are required.
Authors: Neal E Seymour; Anthony G Gallagher; Sanziana A Roman; Michael K O'Brien; Vipin K Bansal; Dana K Andersen; Richard M Satava Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M C Vassiliou; G A Ghitulescu; L S Feldman; D Stanbridge; K Leffondré; H H Sigman; G M Fried Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2006-02-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Gunnar Ahlberg; Lars Enochsson; Anthony G Gallagher; Leif Hedman; Christian Hogman; David A McClusky; Stig Ramel; C Daniel Smith; Dag Arvidsson Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Yoel Lubell; Sarah G Staedke; Brian M Greenwood; Moses R Kamya; Malcolm Molyneux; Paul N Newton; Hugh Reyburn; Robert W Snow; Umberto D'Alessandro; Mike English; Nick Day; Peter Kremsner; Arjen Dondorp; Wilfred Mbacham; Grant Dorsey; Seth Owusu-Agyei; Kathryn Maitland; Sanjeev Krishna; Charles Newton; Geoffrey Pasvol; Terrie Taylor; Lorenz von Seidlein; Nicholas J White; Fred Binka; Anne Mills; Christopher J M Whitty Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anthony Manuguerra; Charles Mazeaud; Nicolas Hubert; Pascal Eschwège; Mathieu Roumiguié; Julia Salleron; Jacques Hubert Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Mathijs D Blikkendaal; Sara R C Driessen; Sharon P Rodrigues; Johann P T Rhemrev; Maddy J G H Smeets; Jenny Dankelman; John J van den Dobbelsteen; Frank Willem Jansen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 4.584