Development and validation of an objective scoring tool to evaluate surgical dissection: Dissection Assessment for Robotic Technique (DART) Journal Article


Authors: Vanstrum, E. B.; Ma, R.; Maya-Silva, J.; Sanford, D.; Nguyen, J. H.; Lei, X.; Chevinksy, M.; Ghoreifi, A.; Han, J.; Polotti, C. F.; Powers, R.; Yip, W.; Zhang, M.; Aron, M.; Collins, J.; Daneshmand, S.; Davis, J. W.; Desai, M. M.; Gerjy, R.; Goh, A. C.; Hu, J. C.; Kimmig, R.; Lendvay, T. S.; Porter, J.; Sotelo, R.; Sundaram, C. P.; Cen, S.; Gill, I. S.; Hung, A. J.
Article Title: Development and validation of an objective scoring tool to evaluate surgical dissection: Dissection Assessment for Robotic Technique (DART)
Abstract: Introduction: Evaluation of surgical competency has important implications for training new surgeons, accreditation, and improving patient outcomes. A method to specifically evaluate dissection performance does not yet exist. This project aimed to design a tool to assess surgical dissection quality. Methods: Delphi method was used to validate structure and content of the dissection evaluation. A multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary panel of 14 expert surgeons systematically evaluated each element of the dissection tool. Ten blinded reviewers evaluated 46 de-identified videos of pelvic lymph node and seminal vesicle dissections during the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Inter-rater variability was calculated using prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted kappa. The area under the curve from receiver operating characteristic curve was used to assess discrimination power for overall Dissection Assessment for Robotic Technique (DART) scores as well as domains in discriminating trainees (<= 100 robotic cases) from experts (>100). Results: Four rounds of Delphi method achieved language and content validity in 27/28 elements. Use of 3 or 5-point scale remained contested; thus, both scales were evaluated during validation. The 3-point scale showed improved kappa for each domain. Experts demonstrated significantly greater total scores on both scales (3-point, p <0.001; 5-point, p <0.001). The ability to distinguish experience was equivalent for total score on both scales (3-point AUC=0.92, CI 0.82-1.00; 5-point AUC=0.92, CI 0.83-1.00). Conclusions: We present the development and validation of DART, an objective and reproducible 3-point surgical assessment to evaluate tissue dissection. DART can effectively differentiate levels of surgeon experience and can be used in multiple surgical steps.
Keywords: education; skills; competence; interdisciplinary research; robotic surgical procedures; crowd-sourced assessment
Journal Title: Urology Practice
Volume: 8
Issue: 5
ISSN: 2352-0779
Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins  
Date Published: 2021-09-01
Start Page: 596
End Page: 604
Language: English
ACCESSION: WOS:000711775500021
DOI: 10.1097/upj.0000000000000246
PROVIDER: wos
PMCID: PMC10150863
PUBMED: 37131998
Notes: Article -- Source: Wos
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Alvin Chun chin Goh
    72 Goh