COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of bench test evaluations of surgical skill with live operating performance assessments.

BACKGROUND: Attempts at assessing surgical proficiency have generally used laboratory simulation to evaluate skill. The aim of this study was to compare technical ability as measured on a bench simulation with actual operative performance.

STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-two general surgeons and trainees were recruited: consultants (n = 4), specialist registrars (n = 14), and senior house officers (n = 4). They were assessed while performing a saphenofemoral dissection on an anesthetized patient in the operating theater, and performing the same procedure on an inanimate model within the laboratory. The Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill method, consisting of a 7-parameter global rating (maximum score 35) and 17-point step-by-step checklist (maximum score 17) was used to measure performance in both environments. Face, content, and construct validity of the synthetic model were established as part of this study.

RESULTS: There was a significant relationship between technical skill as measured on the bench test model and performance within the operating theater with respect to both global rating (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.824, p < 0.001; alpha coefficient 0.89) and checklist ratings (r = 0.514, p < 0.02; alpha coefficient 0.68) rating assessments. Global rating scores correlated with experience for both operative (r = 0.822, p < 0.001) and bench (r = 0.515, p < 0.05) settings. There was no difference in level of measured performance between operating theater and bench model (global rating mean 23.25 +/- 6.66 versus 23.75 +/- 5.62, respectively; paired t-test p = 0.559).

CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of technical skill using inanimate procedural simulation translates to actual surgical performance within the operating theater. This further validates use of bench test evaluations to measure surgical technical ability.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app