Benny Gazer1, Danny Rosin1, Barak Bar-Zakai2, Udi Willenz3, Ofer Doron3, Mordechai Gutman1, Avinoam Nevler4,5,6. 1. Department of General Surgery and Transplantation, Chaim Sheba Medical Center (Affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv), Ramat-Gan, Israel. 2. Department of Surgery, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel. 3. Lahav C.R.O, Kibbutz Lahav, Israel. 4. Department of General Surgery and Transplantation, Chaim Sheba Medical Center (Affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv), Ramat-Gan, Israel. Avinoam.Nevler@jefferson.edu. 5. The Dr. Pinchas Borenstein Talpiot Medical Leadership Program 2012, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Avinoam.Nevler@jefferson.edu. 6. Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, 1025 Walnut St, 611 Curtis Bldg, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. Avinoam.Nevler@jefferson.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measurement of bowel length is an essential surgical skill for laparoscopic and open gastrointestinal surgery in order to achieve favorable outcomes and avoid long-term complications. Variations in accuracy between the two surgical approaches may exist. However, only few studies have tried to assess these differences. Our aim was to assess reliability and inter-rater variability of small bowel length assessment during laparoscopy in an in vivo porcine model. METHODS: This is a single-institution, double-blinded, technical assessment study in a porcine in vivo model. Fourteen participants (ten senior surgeons with >1000 laparoscopic procedures and four junior surgeons) had to assess and mark lengths of small bowel in both laparoscopic and open surgical approaches. Each participant was assigned to measure and mark specific, randomized distances (range 25-197 cm) in both laparoscopic and open approaches using color-coded vessel loops. Actual participant-marked distances were compared to the assigned distances followed by Bland-Altman plots and linear regression analysis to determine accuracy and proportional error trends. Study data were further compared to available data sets from previously published studies. RESULTS:Laparoscopy measurements were significantly shorter than required (difference 33.8 ± 28.7 cm, P < 0.001, 95% CI 17.8-49.7). The measuring error was proportional to the length of the measured segment (63% of the required distances, IQR 58.9-79.0%, P = 0.02). At laparotomy, mean difference and standard deviation were lower (1.5 cm ± SD 15 cm) and not statistically significant (P = 0.7). Re-analysis of previously published data sets validated the observed errors in laparoscopic bowel measurement (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Small bowel length assessment during laparoscopy is inaccurate and associated with substantial variability. There is a need to develop a standardized laparoscopic technique for measuring small bowel length which is simple, reproducible, and easy to learn.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Measurement of bowel length is an essential surgical skill for laparoscopic and open gastrointestinal surgery in order to achieve favorable outcomes and avoid long-term complications. Variations in accuracy between the two surgical approaches may exist. However, only few studies have tried to assess these differences. Our aim was to assess reliability and inter-rater variability of small bowel length assessment during laparoscopy in an in vivo porcine model. METHODS: This is a single-institution, double-blinded, technical assessment study in a porcine in vivo model. Fourteen participants (ten senior surgeons with >1000 laparoscopic procedures and four junior surgeons) had to assess and mark lengths of small bowel in both laparoscopic and open surgical approaches. Each participant was assigned to measure and mark specific, randomized distances (range 25-197 cm) in both laparoscopic and open approaches using color-coded vessel loops. Actual participant-marked distances were compared to the assigned distances followed by Bland-Altman plots and linear regression analysis to determine accuracy and proportional error trends. Study data were further compared to available data sets from previously published studies. RESULTS: Laparoscopy measurements were significantly shorter than required (difference 33.8 ± 28.7 cm, P < 0.001, 95% CI 17.8-49.7). The measuring error was proportional to the length of the measured segment (63% of the required distances, IQR 58.9-79.0%, P = 0.02). At laparotomy, mean difference and standard deviation were lower (1.5 cm ± SD 15 cm) and not statistically significant (P = 0.7). Re-analysis of previously published data sets validated the observed errors in laparoscopic bowel measurement (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Small bowel length assessment during laparoscopy is inaccurate and associated with substantial variability. There is a need to develop a standardized laparoscopic technique for measuring small bowel length which is simple, reproducible, and easy to learn.
Authors: Malene M Birck; Andreas Vegge; Mikael Støckel; Ismail Gögenur; Thomas Thymann; Karsten P Hammelev; Per T Sangild; Axel K Hansen; Kirsten Raun; Pia von Voss; Thomas Eriksen Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Kamal K Mahawar; Parveen Kumar; Chetan Parmar; Yitka Graham; William R J Carr; Neil Jennings; Norbert Schroeder; Shlok Balupuri; Peter K Small Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: José Pablo Suárez Llanos; Manuel Fuentes Ferrer; Luis Alvarez-Sala-Walther; Bruno García Bray; Laura Medina González; Irene Bretón Lesmes; Basilio Moreno Esteban Journal: Nutr Hosp Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 1.057
Authors: Deniece Riviere; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy; David A Kooby; Charles M Vollmer; Marc G H Besselink; Brian R Davidson; Cornelis J H M van Laarhoven Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-04-04
Authors: Reuben D Shin; Michael B Goldberg; Allison S Shafran; Samuel A Shikora; Melissa C Majumdar; Scott A Shikora Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Nienke Slagter; Mette van Wilsum; Loek J M de Heide; Ewoud H Jutte; Mirjam A Kaijser; Stefan L Damen; André P van Beek; Marloes Emous Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 4.129