Using Intraoperative Recordings to Evaluate Surgical Technique and Performance in Mastoidectomy.

Importance: Otolaryngology residency programs currently lack rigorous methods for assessing surgical skill and often rely on biased tools of evaluation.

Objectives: To evaluate which techniques used in mastoidectomy can serve as indicators of surgeon level (defined as the level of training) and whether these determinations of technique can be made based solely on the movement of the drill head or suction.

Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective, observational study conducted from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, at a single tertiary care institution, 3 independent observers made blinded evaluations on 24 intraoperative recordings of surgeons (6 junior residents, 4 senior residents, and 2 attending surgeons) performing mastoidectomies.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Observers assessed drill stroke count, drilling efficiency, stroke pattern, use of suction and irrigation, and estimated surgeon level. Assessments were made on both original videos and animated videos that show only the path of the burr head or suction as dots against a white background.

Results: Among the 24 recorded mastoidectomies performed by the 12 study surgeons, intraclass correlation was excellent for original video assessment of drill stroke count (0.98 [95% CI, 0.97-1.00]), use of suction (0.75 [95% CI, 0.52-0.89]), use of irrigation (0.83 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]), and estimated surgeon level (0.82 [95% CI, 0.64-0.92]) and fair for drilling efficiency (0.54 [95% CI, 0.09-0.79]) and stroke pattern (0.49 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.76]). Intraclass correlation was excellent for animated video assessment of drill stroke count per unit time (0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]) and drilling efficiency (0.80 [95% CI, 0.60-0.91]), good for stroke pattern (0.68 [95% CI, 0.38-0.85]) and estimated surgeon level (based on path of drill) (0.69 [95% CI, 0.38-0.85]), and fair for use of suction (0.58 [95% CI, 0.16-0.80]) and estimated surgeon level (based on path of suction) (0.58 [95% CI, 0.17-0.80]). On evaluation of original videos, junior residents had lower drill stroke count compared with senior residents and attending surgeons (6.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 3.0-8.0] vs 9.5 [IQR, 5.0-13.0] vs 10.5 [IQR, 5.0-17.8]; η2 = 0.14 [95% CI, 0.01-0.28]). On evaluation of animated videos, junior residents also had lower drill stroke count compared with senior residents and attending surgeons (6.0 [IQR, 4.0-9.0] vs 10.5 [IQR, 10.0-13.8] vs 10.5 [IQR, 4.3-21.0]; η2 = 0.19 [95% CI, 0.04-0.33]). Compared with junior and senior residents, attending surgeons had higher median ratings of drilling efficiency (original videos: junior residents, 4.0 [IQR, 3.0-4.0]; senior residents, 4.0 [IQR, 3.0-4.8]; attending surgeons, 5.0 [IQR, 4.3-5.0]; η2 = 0.23 [95% CI, 0.06-0.37]; animated videos: junior residents, 4.0 [IQR, 3.0-4.0]; senior residents, 3.0 [IQR, 2.0-4.0]; attending surgeons, 5.0 [IQR, 4.0-5.0]; η2 = 0.25 [95% CI, 0.08-0.39]) and stroke pattern (original videos: junior residents, 4.0 [IQR, 3.0-4.0]; senior residents, 4.0 [IQR, 3.0-4.8]; attending surgeons, 5.0 [IQR, 5.0-5.0]; η2 = 0.17 [95% CI, 0.03-0.31]; animated videos: junior residents, 4.0 [IQR, 3.0-4.0]; senior residents, 4.0 [IQR, 2.0-4.0]; attending surgeons, 5.0 [IQR, 5.0-5.0]; η2 = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.02-0.29]).

Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that observation of intraoperative mastoidectomy recordings is a feasible method of evaluating surgeon level. Reasonable indicators of surgeon level include the drill stroke count, drilling efficiency, stroke pattern, and use of the suction irrigator. Observing the path of the drill alone is sufficient to appreciate differences in drilling technique but not sufficient to accurately determine surgeon level. Intraoperative recordings can serve as a useful addition to resident education and evaluation.