Structured feedback and operative video debriefing with critical view of safety annotation in training of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The learning curve in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is lengthened compared to open surgery. It has been reported that structured feedback and training in teams of two trainees improves MIS training and MIS performance. Annotation of surgical images and videos may prove beneficial for surgical training. This study investigated whether structured feedback and video debriefing, including annotation of critical view of safety (CVS), have beneficial learning effects in a predefined, multi-modal MIS training curriculum in teams of two trainees. METHODS: This randomized-controlled single-center study included medical students without MIS experience (n = 80). The participants first completed a standardized and structured multi-modal MIS training curriculum. They were then randomly divided into two groups (n = 40 each), and four laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs) were performed on ex-vivo porcine livers each. Students in the intervention group received structured feedback after each LC, consisting of LC performance evaluations through tutor-trainee joint video debriefing and CVS video annotation. Performance was evaluated using global and LC-specific Objective Structured Assessments of Technical Skills (OSATS) and Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) scores. RESULTS: The participants in the intervention group had higher global and LC-specific OSATS as well as global and LC-specific GOALS scores than the participants in the control group (25.5 ± 7.3 vs. 23.4 ± 5.1, p = 0.003; 47.6 ± 12.9 vs. 36 ± 12.8, p < 0.001; 17.5 ± 4.4 vs. 16 ± 3.8, p < 0.001; 6.6 ± 2.3 vs. 5.9 ± 2.1, p = 0.005). The intervention group achieved CVS more often than the control group (1. LC: 20 vs. 10 participants, p = 0.037, 2. LC: 24 vs. 8, p = 0.001, 3. LC: 31 vs. 8, p < 0.001, 4. LC: 31 vs. 10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Structured feedback and video debriefing with CVS annotation improves CVS achievement and ex-vivo porcine LC training performance based on OSATS and GOALS scores.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".