MedElevator
Войти в исследования European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2024
Transvaginal cervical cerclage - How well do surgeons assess their own procedures?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kirstine Hansen Lea, Shennan Andrew H, Louise Eisland-Schmidt Christiansen Emma, Tydeman Graham, Stirrat Laura, Bek Helmig Rikke, Uldbjerg Niels, Glavind Julie
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: In women with cervical incompetence, transvaginal cerclage may help prevent preterm birth. However, training for this procedure poses challenges due to the low number of cases and difficulties in visualizing the operative field. Furthermore, the objective criteria for a successful cerclage procedure are not well-described. Quality assessment relies heavily on self-assessment rather than objective criteria and feedback. To address this issue, training on a simulator may offer a solution. We aimed to objectively assess surgical performance and compare it to the self-assessed performance in transvaginal cerclage procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: During the Nordic Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG) congress in 2023, surgeons proficient in transvaginal cerclage procedures performed a transvaginal cerclage on a simulator. To compare the observed and self-assessed outcomes we obtained measurements on the cerclage height and number of bites from the detachable cervix, and from computed tomography scans we analyzed suture bite depth, reduction of cervix surface area, and whether cerclages had perforated the cervical canal. The same outcomes were self-assessed by each participant after the cerclage procedure. We visualized the continuous paired data in a Bland-Altman plot and compared these data with a paired t-test. Paired binary data was analyzed using McNemars test.
RESULTS: 29 participants from eight different nationalities performed one transvaginal cerclage each. The mean height of the cerclage was 26.8 mm (SD 9 mm) and mean depth was 6.5 mm (SD 1.9 mm) across a mean of 4.1 (SD 0.8) bites. The mean reduction of the cervix surface area was 7.6 % (SD 5.9 %). Two sutures perforated the cervical canal. The participants significantly underestimated the height of their cerclage with a mean difference of 6.0 mm (95 % CI 2.1-9.9), (p 0.002), between the observed and the self-assessed height, but otherwise revealed good self-assessment of their performed procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the experienced cerclage surgeons showed a genuine insight into their surgical performance of a transvaginal cerclage. These results could warrant development of a procedural guidelines with objective measures, now reassured that surgeons are capable of self-assessing their procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: During the Nordic Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG) congress in 2023, surgeons proficient in transvaginal cerclage procedures performed a transvaginal cerclage on a simulator. To compare the observed and self-assessed outcomes we obtained measurements on the cerclage height and number of bites from the detachable cervix, and from computed tomography scans we analyzed suture bite depth, reduction of cervix surface area, and whether cerclages had perforated the cervical canal. The same outcomes were self-assessed by each participant after the cerclage procedure. We visualized the continuous paired data in a Bland-Altman plot and compared these data with a paired t-test. Paired binary data was analyzed using McNemars test.
RESULTS: 29 participants from eight different nationalities performed one transvaginal cerclage each. The mean height of the cerclage was 26.8 mm (SD 9 mm) and mean depth was 6.5 mm (SD 1.9 mm) across a mean of 4.1 (SD 0.8) bites. The mean reduction of the cervix surface area was 7.6 % (SD 5.9 %). Two sutures perforated the cervical canal. The participants significantly underestimated the height of their cerclage with a mean difference of 6.0 mm (95 % CI 2.1-9.9), (p 0.002), between the observed and the self-assessed height, but otherwise revealed good self-assessment of their performed procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the experienced cerclage surgeons showed a genuine insight into their surgical performance of a transvaginal cerclage. These results could warrant development of a procedural guidelines with objective measures, now reassured that surgeons are capable of self-assessing their procedures.