Cargando…

The use of surgical rating scales for the evaluation of surgical working conditions during laparoscopic surgery: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION: Surgical rating scales (SRSs) enable the surgeon to uniformly quantify surgical working conditions. They are increasingly used as a primary outcome in studies evaluating the effect of anaesthesia or surgery-related interventions on the quality of the surgical work field. SRSs are espec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Boon, Martijn, Martini, Christian H., Aarts, Leon P. H. J., Dahan, Albert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6336757/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30218262
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6424-5
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Surgical rating scales (SRSs) enable the surgeon to uniformly quantify surgical working conditions. They are increasingly used as a primary outcome in studies evaluating the effect of anaesthesia or surgery-related interventions on the quality of the surgical work field. SRSs are especially used in laparoscopic surgery due to a renewed interest in deep neuromuscular block. There are however no guidelines regarding the uniform use of SRS and the uniform reporting of results. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science and Embase for studies that reported the use of an SRS to evaluate surgical conditions in laparoscopic surgery. Only original human research in English language with full text availability through the Leiden university library was considered for this review. The full texts of eligible abstracts were independently reviewed by the first and second author. The quality of SRSs and methodology of rating were systematically reviewed. RESULTS: The search yielded 2830 reports, of which 17 were identified using a surgical rating scale (SRS) in laparoscopic surgery. Ten of these reports used a unique SRS, these were systematically appraised for their quality. The overall quality of the SRSs was low: the majority of the scales were poorly described and lacked assessment of inter- and intra-rater reliability. In addition, considerable differences exist in the methodology of rating and the reporting of results. CONCLUSION: There is substantial inconsistency in SRS quality, methodology, and results reporting. The uniform use of high-quality surgical rating scales is needed to improve the quality and reproducibility of future research.