How can surgical skills in laparoscopic colon surgery be objectively assessed?-a scoping review

Background In laparoscopic colorectal surgery, higher technical skills have been associated with improved patient outcome. With the growing interest in laparoscopic techniques, pressure on surgeons and certifying bodies is mounting to ensure that operative procedures are performed safely and efficiently. The aim of the present review was to comprehensively identify tools for skill assessment in laparoscopic colon surgery and to assess their validity as reported in the literature. Methods A systematic search was conducted in EMBASE and PubMed/MEDLINE in May 2021 to identify studies examining technical skills assessment tools in laparoscopic colon surgery. Available information on validity evidence (content, response process, internal structure, relation to other variables, and consequences) was evaluated for all included tools. Results Fourteen assessment tools were identified, of which most were procedure-specific and video-based. Most tools reported moderate validity evidence. Commonly not reported were rater training, assessment correlation with variables other than training level, and validity reproducibility and reliability in external educational settings. Conclusion The results of this review show that several tools are available for evaluation of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery, but few authors present substantial validity for tool development and use. As we move towards the implementation of new techniques in laparoscopic colon surgery, it is imperative to establish validity before surgical skill assessment tools can be applied to new procedures and settings. Therefore, future studies ought to examine different aspects of tool validity, especially correlation with other variables, such as patient morbidity and pathological reports, which impact patient survival.

Automated summary

Fourteen assessment tools for laparoscopic colon surgery were identified, most of which were procedure-specific and video-based. While most tools reported moderate validity evidence, common issues included lack of reported rater training, assessment correlation with variables beyond training level, and reproducibility and reliability in external educational settings. Future studies should focus on different aspects of tool validity, especially correlation with variables like patient morbidity and pathological reports which impact patient survival.