Background: Within minimally invasive surgery (MIS), structural implementation of courses and structured assessment of skills are challenged by availability of trainers, time, and money. We aimed to establish and validate an objective measurement tool for preclinical skills acquisition in a basic laparoscopic at-home training program. Methods: A mobile laparoscopic simulator was equipped with a state-of-the-art force, motion, and time tracking system (ForceSense, MediShield B.V., Delft, the Netherlands). These performance parameters respectively representing tissue manipulation and instrument handling were continuously tracked during every trial. Proficiency levels were set by clinical experts for six different training tasks. Resident’s acquisition and development of fundamental skills were evaluated by comparing pre- and post-course assessment measurements and OSATS forms. A questionnaire was distributed to determine face and content validity. Results: Out of 1842 captured attempts by novices, 1594 successful trials were evaluated. A decrease in maximum exerted absolute force was shown in comparison of four training tasks (p ≤ 0.023). Three of the six comparisons also showed lower mean forces during tissue manipulation (p ≤ 0.024). Lower instrument handling outcomes (i.e., time and motion parameters) were observed in five tasks (resp. (p ≤ 0.019) and (p ≤ 0.025)). Simultaneously, all OSATS scores increased (p ≤ 0.028). Proficiency levels for all tasks can be reached in 2 weeks of at home training. Conclusions: Monitoring force, motion, and time parameters during training showed to be effective in determining acquisition and development of basic laparoscopic tissue manipulation and instrument handling skills. Therefore, we were able to gain insight into the amount of training needed to reach certain levels of competence. Skills improved after sufficient amount of training at home. Questionnaire outcomes indicated that skills and self-confidence improved and that this training should therefore be part of the regular residency training program.

@en

Background

Patient safety is a fundamental value of healthcare to avoid patient harm. Non‐compliance with patient safety standards may result in patient harm and is therefore a global concern. A Self‐assessment Instrument for Perioperative Patient Safety (SIPPS) monitoring and benchmarking compliance to safety standards was validated in a multicentre pilot study.

Methods

A preliminary questionnaire, based on the Dutch perioperative patient safety guidelines and covering international patient safety goals, was evaluated in a first digital RAND Delphi round. The results were used to optimize the questionnaire and design the SIPPS. For measurement and benchmarking purposes, SIPPS was categorized into seven main patient safety domains concerning all care episode phases of the perioperative trajectory. After consensus was reached in a face‐to‐face Delphi round, SIPPS was pilot‐tested in five hospitals for five characteristics: measurability, applicability, improvement potential, discriminatory capacity and feasibility.

Results

The results of the first Delphi round showed moderate feasibility for the preliminary questionnaire (81·6 per cent). The pilot test showed good measurability for SIPPS: 99·8 per cent of requested information was assessable. Some 99·9 per cent of SIPPS questions were applicable to the selected respondents. With SIPPS, room for improvement in perioperative patient safety compliance was demonstrated for all hospitals, concerning all safety domains and all care episode phases of the perioperative trajectory (compliance 76·1 per cent). SIPPS showed mixed results for discriminatory capacity. SIPPS showed good feasibility for all items (range 91·9–95·7 per cent).

Conclusion

A self‐assessment instrument for measuring perioperative patient safety (SIPPS) compliance meeting international standards was validated. With SIPPS, improvement areas for perioperative patient safety and best practices across hospitals could be identified.

@en

Background: Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is associated with improved recovery and similar cancer outcomes at 3 and 5 years in comparison with open surgery. However, long-term survival rates have rarely been reported. Here, we present survival and recurrence rates of the Dutch patients included in the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial at 10-year follow-up. Methods: Between March 1997 and March 2003, patients with non-metastatic colon cancer were recruited by 29 hospitals in eight countries and randomised to either laparoscopic or open surgery. Main inclusion criterion for the COLOR trial was solitary adenocarcinoma of the left or right colon. The primary outcome was disease-free survival at 3 years, and secondary outcomes included overall survival and recurrence. The 10-year follow-up data of all Dutch patients were collected. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00387842). Results: In total, 1248 patients were randomised, of which 329 were Dutch. Fifty-eight Dutch patients were excluded and 15 were lost to follow-up, leaving 256 patients for 10-year analysis. Median follow-up was 112 months. Disease-free survival rates were 45.2 % in the laparoscopic group and 43.2 % in the open group (difference 2.0 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) −10.3 to 14.3; p = 0.96). Overall survival rates were 48.4 and 46.7 %, respectively (difference 1.7 %; 95 % CI −10.6 to 14.0; p = 0.83). Stage-specific analysis revealed similar survival rates for both groups. Sixty-two patients were diagnosed with recurrent disease, accounting for 29.4 % in the laparoscopic group and 28.2 % in the open group (difference 1.2 %; 95 % CI −11.1 to 13.5; p = 0.73). Seven patients had port- or wound-site recurrences (laparoscopic n = 3 vs. open n = 4). Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery for non-metastatic colon cancer is associated with similar rates of disease-free survival, overall survival and recurrences as open surgery at 10-year follow-up.

@en

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections in a nationwide population-based study. BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic techniques are increasingly used in colorectal cancer surgery, little is known on results outside trials. With the fast introduction of laparoscopic resection (LR), questions were raised about safety. METHODS: Of all patients who underwent an elective colorectal cancer resection in 2010 in the Netherlands, 93% were included in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Short-term outcome after LR, open resection (OR), and converted LR were compared in a generalized linear mixed model. We further explored hospital differences in LR and conversion rates. RESULTS: A total of 7350 patients, treated in 90 hospitals, were included. LR rate was 41% with a conversion rate of 15%. After adjustment for differences in case-mix, LR was associated with a lower risk of mortality (odds ratio 0.63, P < 0.01), major morbidity (odds ratio 0.72, P < 0.01), any complications (odds ratio 0.74, P < 0.01), hospital stay more than 14 days (odds ratio 0.71, P < 0.01), and irradical resections (odds ratio 0.68, P < 0.01), compared to OR. Outcome after conversion was similar to OR (P > 0.05). A large variation in LR and conversion rates among hospitals was found; however, the difference in outcome associated with operative techniques was not influenced by hospital of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Use of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands is safe and results are better in short-term outcome than open surgery, irrespective of the hospital of treatment. Outcome after conversion was similar to OR.

@en