INTRODUCTION: YouTube is the most used platform for case preparation by surgical trainees. Despite its popular use, studies have noted limitations in surgical technique, safety, and vetting of these videos. This study identified the most viewed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) videos on YouTube and analyzed the ability of attendings, residents, and medical students to identify critical portions of the procedure, technique, and limitations of the videos. METHODS: An incognito search was conducted on YouTube using the term "laparoscopic cholecystectomy." Results were screened for length, publication date, and language. The top ten most viewed videos were presented to general surgery attendings, residents, and medical students at a single academic institution. Established rubrics were used for evaluation, including the Critical View of Safety (CVS) for LC, a modified Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) score, a task-specific checklist, and visual analog scales for case difficulty and operator competence. Educational quality and likelihood of video recommendation for case preparation were evaluated using a Likert scale. Attending assessments were considered the gold standard. RESULTS: Six attending surgeons achieved excellent internal consistency on CVS, educational quality, and likelihood of recommendation scales, with Cronbach alpha (⍺) of 0.93, 0.92, and 0.92, respectively. ⍺ was ≥ 0.7 in all the other scales measured. Attending evaluations revealed that only one of the ten videos attained all three established CVS criteria. Four videos demonstrated none of the CVS criteria. The mean educational quality (mEQ) was 4.63 on a 10-point scale. The mean likelihood of recommendation (mLoR) for case preparation was 2.3 on a 5-point scale. Senior resident assessments (Postgraduate Year (PGY)4 + , n = 12) aligned with attending surgeons, with no statistically significant differences in CVS attainment, mEQ, and mLoR. Junior residents (PGY1-3, n = 17) and medical students (MS3-4, n = 20) exhibited significant difference with attendings in CVS attainment, mEQ, and mLoR for more than half the videos. Both groups tended to overrate videos compared to attendings. CONCLUSION: YouTube is the most popular unvetted resource used for case presentation by surgical trainees. Attending evaluations revealed that the most viewed LC videos on YouTube did not attain the CVS, and were deemed as inappropriate for case preparation, with low educational value. Senior resident video assessments closely aligned with attendings, while junior trainees were more likely to overstate video quality and value. Attending guidance and direction of trainees to high-quality, vetted resources for surgical case preparation is needed. This may also suggest a need for surgical societies with platforms for video sharing to prioritize the creation and dissemination of high-quality videos on easily accessible public platforms.
INTRODUCTION: YouTube is the most used platform for case preparation by surgical trainees. Despite its popular use, studies have noted limitations in surgical technique, safety, and vetting of these videos. This study identified the most viewed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) videos on YouTube and analyzed the ability of attendings, residents, and medical students to identify critical portions of the procedure, technique, and limitations of the videos. METHODS: An incognito search was conducted on YouTube using the term "laparoscopic cholecystectomy." Results were screened for length, publication date, and language. The top ten most viewed videos were presented to general surgery attendings, residents, and medical students at a single academic institution. Established rubrics were used for evaluation, including the Critical View of Safety (CVS) for LC, a modified Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) score, a task-specific checklist, and visual analog scales for case difficulty and operator competence. Educational quality and likelihood of video recommendation for case preparation were evaluated using a Likert scale. Attending assessments were considered the gold standard. RESULTS: Six attending surgeons achieved excellent internal consistency on CVS, educational quality, and likelihood of recommendation scales, with Cronbach alpha (⍺) of 0.93, 0.92, and 0.92, respectively. ⍺ was ≥ 0.7 in all the other scales measured. Attending evaluations revealed that only one of the ten videos attained all three established CVS criteria. Four videos demonstrated none of the CVS criteria. The mean educational quality (mEQ) was 4.63 on a 10-point scale. The mean likelihood of recommendation (mLoR) for case preparation was 2.3 on a 5-point scale. Senior resident assessments (Postgraduate Year (PGY)4 + , n = 12) aligned with attending surgeons, with no statistically significant differences in CVS attainment, mEQ, and mLoR. Junior residents (PGY1-3, n = 17) and medical students (MS3-4, n = 20) exhibited significant difference with attendings in CVS attainment, mEQ, and mLoR for more than half the videos. Both groups tended to overrate videos compared to attendings. CONCLUSION: YouTube is the most popular unvetted resource used for case presentation by surgical trainees. Attending evaluations revealed that the most viewed LC videos on YouTube did not attain the CVS, and were deemed as inappropriate for case preparation, with low educational value. Senior resident video assessments closely aligned with attendings, while junior trainees were more likely to overstate video quality and value. Attending guidance and direction of trainees to high-quality, vetted resources for surgical case preparation is needed. This may also suggest a need for surgical societies with platforms for video sharing to prioritize the creation and dissemination of high-quality videos on easily accessible public platforms.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Dominic E Sanford; Angela M Sanford; Ryan C Fields; William G Hawkins; Steven M Strasberg; David C Linehan Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Joshua P Landreneau; Andrew T Strong; Kevin El-Hayek; Chao Tu; James Villamere; Jeffrey L Ponsky; Matthew D Kroh; John H Rodriguez Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Allison K Rapp; Michael G Healy; Mary E Charlton; Jerrod N Keith; Marcy E Rosenbaum; Muneera R Kapadia Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: K T Buddingh; A N Morks; H O ten Cate Hoedemaker; C B Blaauw; G M van Dam; R J Ploeg; H S Hofker; V B Nieuwenhuijs Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 4.584