Systematic Review of Intraoperative Assessment Tools in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery

• Published in: Journal of minimally invasive gynecology Vol. 28; no. 3; p. 692
• Main Authors: Ferriss, J Stuart, Frost, Anja S, Heinzman, Alison Brooks, Tsai, Rita, Patterson, Danielle, Patzkowsky, Kristen, Blanck, Jaime, Bienstock, Jessica L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.03.2021
• Subjects: Operative teaching; MIGS; Surgical evaluation
• ISSN: 1553-4669
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.10.007

To collect, summarize, and evaluate the currently available intraoperative rating tools used in abdominal minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS). Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases from January 1, 2000, to May 12, 2020. A systematic search strategy was designed and executed. Published studies evaluating an assessment tool in abdominal MIGS cases were included. Studies focused on simulation, reviews, and abstracts without a published manuscript were excluded. Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed for each study. Disparate study methods prevented quantitative synthesis of the data. Ten studies were included in the analysis. The tools were grouped into global (n = 4) and procedure-specific assessments (n = 6). Most studies evaluated small numbers of surgeons and lacked a comparison group to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool. All studies demonstrated content validity and at least 1 dimension of reliability, and 2 have external validity. The intraoperative procedure-specific tools have been more thoroughly evaluated than the global scales. Procedure-specific intraoperative assessment tools for MIGS cases are more thoroughly evaluated than global tools; however, poor-quality studies and borderline reliability limit their use. Well-designed, controlled studies evaluating the effectiveness of intraoperative assessment tools in MIGS are needed.