Facts, Views & Vision
in ObGyn

Journal of the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy

esge_logo

Development and validation of GLVS (Generic Laparoscopic Video Scoring System), a tool for assessment of laparoscopic skills in gynaecology using videotaped procedures: Are edited videos representative of their full-length version?

S. Khazali1,2,3, A. Bachi1, T.T. Carpenter4, A. Moors5, K. Ballard6

1 Centre for Endometriosis and Minimally Invasive Gynaecology (CEMIG London), HCA The Lister Hospital, Chelsea Bridge Road, London, United Kingdom, SW1W 8RH
2 Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, United Kingdom, TW20 0EX
3 Ashford and St. Peter’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Guildford Road, Chertsey, United Kingdom, KT16 0PZ
4 Poole Hospital NHS Trust, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Longfleet Road, Poole, Dorset, United Kingdom, BH15 2JB
5 Princess Anne Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Coxford Road, Southampton, United Kingdom, SO16 5YA
6 University of Surrey, Postgraduate Medical School, Daphne Jackson Road, Manor Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7WG.

Keywords:

Assessment tool, laparoscopic skills


Published online: Sep 24 2023

https://doi.org/10.52054/FVVO.15.2.082

Abstract

Background: Anonymized videotaped endoscopic procedures can be used for the assessment of surgical competence, but a reliable non-procedure-specific scoring system is needed for gynaecology.

Objectives: To design and evaluate the validity of the Generic Laparoscopic Video Scoring System (GLVS), a novel tool in the assessment of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures.

Materials and methods: Seventeen anonymized unedited video recordings of various gynaecological laparoscopic procedures and the 4-minute-long edited versions of the same videos were independently scored by two experts, twice, using GLVS.

Main outcome measures: Internal consistency reliability, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability of GLVS. We also compared the scored achieved by edited videos with those of the full-length version of the same videos.

Results: The mean score achieved by 4-minute-long edited videos was similar to that of the unedited version (p= 0.13 - 0.19). There was excellent correlation between the pooled scores for edited and unedited versions (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.86). GLVS had excellent internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha 0.92-0.97). Test-retest and inter-rater reliability were generally better for edited 4-minute-long videos compared to their full-length version. Test-retest reliability for edited videos was excellent for scorer 1 and good for scorer 2 with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.88 and 0.62 respectively. Inter-rater reliability was good for edited videos (ICC=0.64) but poor for full-length versions (ICC= -0.24).

Conclusion: GLVS allows for objective surgical skills assessment using anonymized shortened self-edited videos  of basic gynaecological laparoscopic procedures. Shortened video clips of procedures seem to be representative  of their full-length version for the assessment of surgical skills.

What’s new? We devised and undertook a validation study for a novel tool to assess surgical skills using surgical video clips. We believe this addition clearly delineates the unique contributions of our study.