Suppr超能文献

机器人辅助胆囊切除术的在线视频:弊大于利?

Online videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies: more harm than good?

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Ave, S-321, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.

Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2024 Sep;38(9):5023-5029. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11054-9. Epub 2024 Jul 15.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Many surgeons use online videos to learn. However, these videos vary in content, quality, and educational value. In the setting of recent work questioning the safety of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies, we aimed (1) to identify highly watched online videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies, (2) to determine whether these videos demonstrate suboptimal techniques, and (3) to compare videos based on platform.

METHODS

Two authors searched YouTube and a members-only Facebook group to identify highly watched videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies. Three members of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons Safe Cholecystectomy Task Force then reviewed videos in random order. These three members rated each video using Sanford and Strasberg's six-point criteria for critical view of safety (CVS) scoring and the Parkland grading scale for cholecystitis. We performed regression to determine any association between Parkland grade and CVS score. We also compared scores between the YouTube and Facebook videos using a t test.

RESULTS

We identified 50 videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomies, including 25 from YouTube and 25 from Facebook. Of the 50 videos, six demonstrated a top-down approach. The remaining 44 videos received a mean of 2.4 of 6 points for the CVS score (SD = 1.8). Overall, 4 of the 50 videos (8%) received a passing CVS score of 5 or 6. Videos received a mean of 2.4 of 5 points for the Parkland grade (SD = 0.9). Videos on YouTube had lower CVS scores than videos on Facebook (1.9 vs. 2.8, respectively), though this difference was not significant (p = 0.09). By regression, there was no association between Parkland grade and CVS score (p = 0.13).

CONCLUSION

Publicly available and closed-group online videos of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy demonstrated inadequate dissection and may be of limited educational value. Future work should center on introducing measures to identify and feature videos with high-quality techniques most useful to surgeons.

摘要

背景

许多外科医生使用在线视频进行学习。然而,这些视频在内容、质量和教育价值方面存在差异。在最近的工作对机器人辅助胆囊切除术的安全性提出质疑的背景下,我们旨在:(1)确定观看次数最多的机器人辅助胆囊切除术在线视频;(2)确定这些视频是否展示了不规范的技术;(3)基于平台对视频进行比较。

方法

两位作者在 YouTube 和一个仅限会员的 Facebook 群组中搜索观看次数最多的机器人辅助胆囊切除术视频。然后,三位美国胃肠内镜外科医师协会安全胆囊切除术工作组的成员按照随机顺序查看视频。这三位成员使用 Sanford 和 Strasberg 的六点关键安全视图(CVS)评分标准和 Parkland 胆囊炎分级量表对每个视频进行评分。我们进行回归分析,以确定 Parkland 分级与 CVS 评分之间的任何关联。我们还使用 t 检验比较了 YouTube 和 Facebook 视频之间的评分。

结果

我们确定了 50 个机器人辅助胆囊切除术视频,其中 25 个来自 YouTube,25 个来自 Facebook。在这 50 个视频中,有 6 个展示了自上而下的方法。其余 44 个视频的 CVS 评分平均得分为 6 分中的 2.4 分(标准差=1.8)。总体而言,有 4 个视频(8%)的 CVS 评分达到 5 或 6 分的及格分数。视频的 Parkland 分级平均得分为 5 分中的 2.4 分(标准差=0.9)。YouTube 上的视频的 CVS 评分低于 Facebook 上的视频(分别为 1.9 分和 2.8 分),但差异无统计学意义(p=0.09)。通过回归分析,Parkland 分级与 CVS 评分之间没有关联(p=0.13)。

结论

公开和封闭群组的机器人辅助胆囊切除术在线视频显示出不充分的解剖,可能教育价值有限。未来的工作应集中于引入措施,以识别和展示对外科医生最有用的高质量技术的视频。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验