Domains of four-step technique training program for laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Techniques in Coloproctology Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1007/s10151-024-03042-x
Y-J Chern, Y-J Hsu, H-Y Hsu, W-S Tsai, P-S Hsieh, C-K Liao, C-C Cheng, J-F You
{"title":"Domains of four-step technique training program for laparoscopic colorectal surgery.","authors":"Y-J Chern, Y-J Hsu, H-Y Hsu, W-S Tsai, P-S Hsieh, C-K Liao, C-C Cheng, J-F You","doi":"10.1007/s10151-024-03042-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many surgeons have begun learning about colorectal surgery using laparoscopy rather than laparotomy. The domains of four-step technique training program (DOF) for laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been designed and implemented by our institute since 2011, and they are expected to provide a safe and effective program for trainees with limited experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The DOF were established with standard surgical procedures, a four-step technique, and learning passports using point credits after the procedure was completed. Patients who underwent minimally invasive colorectal resection at the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital between January 2013 and April 2019 were enrolled.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 2604 and 478 patients were enrolled in the non-training and training groups, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the postoperative short-term outcomes were not significantly associated with the training or non-training groups. However, the training group had a significantly longer operative time than the non-training group in the linear regression model. Once the trainee passed the proficiency point (passed 100 points or 30 cases), no significant difference in postoperative short-term outcomes was found between the patients in the non-training and training groups that underwent the entire surgery performed by the trainee.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When patients' safety was evaluated in the training cases under the DOF, no higher rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality were found compared to those in cases performed by experienced surgeons. Additionally, trainees who passed the proficiency point during DOF could safely perform the entire laparoscopic colorectal surgery under supervision without further adverse effects on the patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":51192,"journal":{"name":"Techniques in Coloproctology","volume":"28 1","pages":"156"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques in Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-024-03042-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many surgeons have begun learning about colorectal surgery using laparoscopy rather than laparotomy. The domains of four-step technique training program (DOF) for laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been designed and implemented by our institute since 2011, and they are expected to provide a safe and effective program for trainees with limited experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Method: The DOF were established with standard surgical procedures, a four-step technique, and learning passports using point credits after the procedure was completed. Patients who underwent minimally invasive colorectal resection at the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital between January 2013 and April 2019 were enrolled.

Results: Overall, 2604 and 478 patients were enrolled in the non-training and training groups, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the postoperative short-term outcomes were not significantly associated with the training or non-training groups. However, the training group had a significantly longer operative time than the non-training group in the linear regression model. Once the trainee passed the proficiency point (passed 100 points or 30 cases), no significant difference in postoperative short-term outcomes was found between the patients in the non-training and training groups that underwent the entire surgery performed by the trainee.

Conclusion: When patients' safety was evaluated in the training cases under the DOF, no higher rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality were found compared to those in cases performed by experienced surgeons. Additionally, trainees who passed the proficiency point during DOF could safely perform the entire laparoscopic colorectal surgery under supervision without further adverse effects on the patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹腔镜结直肠手术四步技术培训计划的领域。
背景:许多外科医生已开始学习使用腹腔镜而非开腹手术进行结直肠手术。我院自 2011 年起设计并实施了腹腔镜结直肠手术四步技术培训计划(DOF),预计将为腹腔镜结直肠手术经验有限的学员提供安全有效的培训计划:方法:DOF采用标准手术流程、四步技术,并在手术完成后使用积分学习护照。研究对象为2013年1月至2019年4月期间在长庚纪念医院接受微创结直肠切除术的患者:非培训组和培训组分别有 2604 名和 478 名患者。多变量逻辑回归分析显示,术后短期疗效与培训组和非培训组无显著相关性。不过,在线性回归模型中,培训组的手术时间明显长于非培训组。一旦受训者通过熟练点(通过 100 点或 30 例),在接受受训者实施的整个手术的非受训组和受训组患者之间,术后短期疗效没有发现明显差异:结论:在DOF下对受训病例的患者安全性进行评估时,并未发现术后发病率和死亡率高于由经验丰富的外科医生实施的病例。此外,在DOF期间通过熟练点的学员可以在监护下安全地完成整个腹腔镜结直肠手术,而不会对患者造成进一步的不良影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Techniques in Coloproctology
Techniques in Coloproctology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
176
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Techniques in Coloproctology is an international journal fully devoted to diagnostic and operative procedures carried out in the management of colorectal diseases. Imaging, clinical physiology, laparoscopy, open abdominal surgery and proctoperineology are the main topics covered by the journal. Reviews, original articles, technical notes and short communications with many detailed illustrations render this publication indispensable for coloproctologists and related specialists. Both surgeons and gastroenterologists are represented on the distinguished Editorial Board, together with pathologists, radiologists and basic scientists from all over the world. The journal is strongly recommended to those who wish to be updated on recent developments in the field, and improve the standards of their work. Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1965 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted. Reports of animal experiments must state that the Principles of Laboratory Animal Care (NIH publication no. 86-23 revised 1985) were followed as were applicable national laws (e.g. the current version of the German Law on the Protection of Animals). The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. Authors will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill such requirements.
期刊最新文献
Laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation (video). Predictors of perioperative morbidity in elderly patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection. Combined versus conventional approaches in laparoscopic radical right hemicolectomy: a retrospective analysis. Best clinical practice recommendations for the management of symptomatic hemorrhoids via laser hemorrhoidoplasty: the LHP recommendations. Preoperative anorectal manometry as a predictor of function after ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1