Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Defining technical errors in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Technical errors, a distinct subcomponent of surgical proficiency, have a significant impact on patient safety and clinical outcomes. To date, only a few studies have been designed to describe and evaluate these errors. This review was performed to assess technical errors described in laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

A literature search of Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and OVID databases (1946–2012, week 14) using the terms “technical/medical error,” “technical skill,” and “adverse event” in combination with the terms “laparoscopy/laparoscopic surgery” was conducted. English language peer review articles with a description of technical errors were included. Opinion papers, reviews, and articles not addressing laparoscopic surgery were excluded.

Results

The search returned 2,282 articles. Application of the inclusion criteria reduced the number of articles to 21. Of these 21 articles, 14 (67 %) were observational studies, 3 (14 %) were randomized trials, 2 (10 %) were prospective interventional studies, and 2 (10 %) were retrospective analyses. Eight articles (38 %) applied error analysis as an approach to determine error rates within routine procedures. The remaining 13 articles (62 %) used the assessment of errors to describe and quantify surgical skill in an educational setting.

Conclusions

A number of approaches for the assessment of surgical technical errors exist. The error definitions vary greatly, making a comparison of error rates between groups impossible. Complexity of scale design and subjectivity in ratings have resulted in limited use of these scores outside the experimental setting. To facilitate error analysis as a self-assessment method of continuous learning and quality control, further research and better tools are required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Fried GM, Gill H (2007) Surgery through the keyhole: a new view of an old art. Mcgill J Med 10:140–143

  2. 2.

    Choi DH, Jeong WK, Lim SW, Chung TS, Park JI, Lim SB, Choi HS, Nam BH, Chang HJ, Jeong SY (2009) Learning curves for laparoscopic sigmoidectomy used to manage curable sigmoid colon cancer: single-institute, three-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 23:622–628

  3. 3.

    Park IJ, Choi GS, Lim KH, Kang BM, Jun SH (2009) Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: lessons from 1,000 cases of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 23:839–846

  4. 4.

    Dincler S, Koller MT, Steurer J, Bachmann LM, Christen D, Buchmann P (2003) Multidimensional analysis of learning curves in laparoscopic sigmoid resection: eight-year results. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1371–1378; discussion 1378–1379

  5. 5.

    Gould JC, Garren MJ, Starling JR (2004) Lessons learned from the first 100 cases in a new minimally invasive bariatric surgery program. Obes Surg 14:618–625

  6. 6.

    Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, Brown M (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84:273–278

  7. 7.

    Regehr G, MacRae H, Reznick RK, Szalay D (1998) Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination. Acad Med 73:993–997

  8. 8.

    Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, Bergman S, Leffondre K, Stanbridge D, Fried GM (2005) A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 190:107–113

  9. 9.

    Vassiliou MC, Ghitulescu GA, Feldman LS, Stanbridge D, Leffondre K, Sigman HH, Fried GM (2006) The MISTELS program to measure technical skill in laparoscopic surgery: evidence for reliability. Surg Endosc 20:744–747

  10. 10.

    Rodrigues SP, Wever AM, Dankelman J, Jansen FW (2012) Risk factors in patient safety: minimally invasive surgery versus conventional surgery. Surg Endosc 26:350–356

  11. 11.

    Catchpole K (2010) Errors in the operating theatre: how to spot and stop them. J Health Serv Res Policy 15(Suppl 1):48–51

  12. 12.

    Lubell Y, Staedke SG, Greenwood BM, Kamya MR, Molyneux M, Newton PN, Reyburn H, Snow RW, D’Alessandro U, English M, Day N, Kremsner P, Dondorp A, Mbacham W, Dorsey G, Owusu-Agyei S, Maitland K, Krishna S, Newton C, Pasvol G, Taylor T, von Seidlein L, White NJ, Binka F, Mills A, Whitty CJ (2011) Likely health outcomes for untreated acute febrile illness in the tropics in decision and economic models: a Delphi survey. PLoS ONE 6:e17439

  13. 13.

    Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, Brennan TA (1999) The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery 126:66–75

  14. 14.

    Gawande AA, Zinner MJ, Studdert DM, Brennan TA (2003) Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery 133:614–621

  15. 15.

    Rogers SO Jr, Gawande AA, Kwaan M, Puopolo AL, Yoon C, Brennan TA, Studdert DM (2006) Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers. Surgery 140:25–33

  16. 16.

    Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system. In: Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. National Academies Press, Washington, p 28

  17. 17.

    Rebasa P, Mora L, Luna A, Montmany S, Vallverdu H, Navarro S (2009) Continuous monitoring of adverse events: influence on the quality of care and the incidence of errors in general surgery. World J Surg 33:191–198

  18. 18.

    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62:e1–e34

  19. 19.

    Joice P, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1998) Errors enacted during endoscopic surgery: a human reliability analysis. Appl Ergon 29:409–414

  20. 20.

    Lien HH, Huang CC, Liu JS, Shi MY, Chen DF, Wang NY, Tai FC, Huang CS (2007) System approach to prevent common bile duct injury and enhance performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:164–170

  21. 21.

    McCulloch P, Mishra A, Handa A, Dale T, Hirst G, Catchpole K (2009) The effects of aviation-style nontechnical skills training on technical performance and outcome in the operating theatre. Qual Saf Health Care 18:109–115

  22. 22.

    Ahlberg G, Enochsson L, Gallagher AG, Hedman L, Hogman C, McClusky DA III, Ramel S, Smith CD, Arvidsson D (2007) Proficiency-based virtual reality training significantly reduces the error rate for residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Am J Surg 193:797–804

  23. 23.

    Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, Satava RM (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236:458–463; discussion 463–454

  24. 24.

    Way LW, Stewart L, Gantert W, Liu K, Lee CM, Whang K, Hunter JG (2003) Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries: analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychology perspective. Ann Surg 237:460–469

  25. 25.

    Eubanks TR, Clements RH, Pohl D, Williams N, Schaad DC, Horgan S, Pellegrini C (1999) An objective scoring system for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 189:566–574

  26. 26.

    Tang B, Hanna GB, Bax NM, Cuschieri A (2004) Analysis of technical surgical errors during initial experience of laparoscopic pyloromyotomy by a group of Dutch pediatric surgeons. Surg Endosc 18:1716–1720

  27. 27.

    Tang B, Hanna GB, Joice P, Cuschieri A (2004) Identification and categorization of technical errors by Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment (OCHRA) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg 139:1215–1220

  28. 28.

    Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Brien MK, Andersen DK, Satava RM (2004) Analysis of errors in laparoscopic surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 18:592–595

  29. 29.

    Sarker SK, Chang A, Vincent C, Darzi AW (2005) Technical skills errors in laparoscopic cholecystectomy by expert surgeons. Surg Endosc 19:832–835

  30. 30.

    Hwang H, Lim J, Kinnaird C, Nagy AG, Panton ON, Hodgson AJ, Qayumi KA (2006) Correlating motor performance with surgical error in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 20:651–655

  31. 31.

    Hamad GG, Brown MT, Clavijo-Alvarez JA (2007) Postoperative video debriefing reduces technical errors in laparoscopic surgery. Am J Surg 194:110–114

  32. 32.

    Catchpole K, Mishra A, Handa A, McCulloch P (2008) Teamwork and error in the operating room: analysis of skills and roles. Ann Surg 247:699–706

  33. 33.

    Mishra A, Catchpole K, Dale T, McCulloch P (2008) The influence of nontechnical performance on technical outcome in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22:68–73

  34. 34.

    Talebpour M, Alijani A, Hanna GB, Moosa Z, Tang B, Cuschieri A (2009) Proficiency-gain curve for an advanced laparoscopic procedure defined by observation clinical human reliability assessment (OCHRA). Surg Endosc 23:869–875

  35. 35.

    Tang B, Hanna GB, Carter F, Adamson GD, Martindale JP, Cuschieri A (2006) Competence assessment of laparoscopic operative and cognitive skills: Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) or Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment (OCHRA). World J Surg 30:527–534

  36. 36.

    Tang B, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (2005) Analysis of errors enacted by surgical trainees during skills training courses. Surgery 138:14–20

  37. 37.

    Adrales GL, Park AE, Chu UB, Witzke DB, Donnelly MB, Hoskins JD, Mastrangelo MJ Jr, Gandsas A (2003) A valid method of laparoscopic simulation training and competence assessment. J Surg Res 114:156–162

  38. 38.

    Sarker SK, Chang A, Vincent C (2006) Technical and technological skills assessment in laparoscopic surgery. JSLS 10:284–292

  39. 39.

    Pugh C, Plachta S, Auyang E, Pryor A, Hungness E (2010) Outcome measures for surgical simulators: is the focus on technical skills the best approach? Surgery 147:646–654

  40. 40.

    Cuschieri A, Tang B (2010) Human reliability analysis (HRA) techniques and observational clinical HRA. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 19:12–17

  41. 41.

    Embry DE (1986) SHERPA: a systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. International Topical Meeting on Advanced in Human Factors in Nuclear Power Systems, Knoxville

  42. 42.

    Darosa DA, Pugh CM (2012) Error training: missing link in surgical education. Surgery 151:139–145

  43. 43.

    Bann S, Datta V, Khan M, Darzi A (2003) The surgical error examination is a novel method for objective technical knowledge assessment. Am J Surg 185:507–511

  44. 44.

    Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VB, Bendix J, Bardram L, Rosenberg J, Funch-Jensen P (2004) Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br J Surg 91:146–150

  45. 45.

    Kundhal PS, Grantcharov TP (2009) Psychomotor performance measured in a virtual environment correlates with technical skills in the operating room. Surg Endosc 23:645–649

  46. 46.

    Stefanidis D, Scott DJ, Korndorffer JR Jr (2009) Do metrics matter? Time versus motion tracking for performance assessment of proficiency-based laparoscopic skills training. Simul Healthc 4:104–108

  47. 47.

    Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA

  48. 48.

    Regenbogen SE, Greenberg CC, Studdert DM, Lipsitz SR, Zinner MJ, Gawande AA (2007) Patterns of technical error among surgical malpractice claims: an analysis of strategies to prevent injury to surgical patients. Ann Surg 246:705–711

  49. 49.

    Catchpole KR, Giddings AE, Wilkinson M, Hirst G, Dale T, de Leval MR (2007) Improving patient safety by identifying latent failures in successful operations. Surgery 142:102–110

  50. 50.

    de Leval MR, Carthey J, Wright DJ, Farewell VT, Reason JT (2000) Human factors and cardiac surgery: a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119:661–672

  51. 51.

    Cuschieri A (2000) Human reliability assessment in surgery: a new approach for improving surgical performance and clinical outcome. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82:83–87

Download references

Disclosures

The research group, including Esther M. Bonrath, Nicolas J. Dedy, and Teodor P. Grantcharov, has received funding through a Johnson & Johnson Medical Canada Educational Grant and the Ontario Research Foundation (ORF). Esther M. Bonrath and Teodor P. Grantcharov have received funding support from the University of Toronto, Educational Development Fund (EDF). Boris Zevin has no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Correspondence to Esther M. Bonrath.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bonrath, E.M., Dedy, N.J., Zevin, B. et al. Defining technical errors in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 27, 2678–2691 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2827-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Adverse event
  • Error analysis
  • Laparoscopic surgery
  • Medical errors
  • Technical errors