PBP Versus Halsted's Model: the PROVESA Trial

The aim of this paper is to report the main outcomes of the PROVESA trial without emphasizing the interspecialty differences. The investigators will however emphasize its methodology, the fact that is well controlled and multicentric. Differences in proficiency level, assessed by binary performance metrics based assessment of a robotic suturing and knot tying task, will be reported.

Surgical skill is often thought to be associated to surgical discipline. The aim of this study is to compare the objectively assessed training outcomes of different surgical disciplines (Surgery, Gynecology/obstetrics and Urology) performing the robotic suturing of a vesico-urethral anastomosis (VUA) on a chicken model. Participants were trained according to a traditional versus a proficiency based progression methodology and were assessed by the use of validated, binary performance operative metrics.

Nowadays, different methods are used to assess surgical performance. One of the most commonly used methods is the GEARS (Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills). This is, however, a qualitative scoring method which uses a Likert scale for scoring and which might be prone to poor interrater reliability and subjectiveness.

The aim of this paper will be to report the interrater reliability of both scoring methods and the correlation between each other. Hypothesis is that interrater reliability will be superior for performance metrics. The investigators will try to answer the question which is the best tool to assess surgical performance.

Satisfaction of a surgical trainee is often thought to be key for training quality and a predictor of good outcome of surgical training. At the end of the PROVESA, all participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire where their satisfaction with the adopted training method was asked for using a Likert scale.

Hypothesis is that trainee's satisfaction does NOT correlate with training outcome and that satisfaction is NOT a good determinator of training quality.

Surgical performance is often assessed live during surgery. However, one might miss specific details of performance. A possible answer to this query lies in video-based scoring of a surgical task. However, does video-based scoring reflects the same surgical quality? Moreover, one could question the ethical aspect of non-live scoring of surgical performance.

In the PROVESA trial, all surgical tasks were scored live and video-based afterwards. The correlation in metrics-based performance scores between live and video-based assessment will be investigated.

Hypothesis is that there will be no differences. The investigators will try to answer the question which scoring method will give the trainee the highest chance of reaching proficiency?

During the PROVESA trial, all participants had to do an online assessment. This was done on an online learning platform using a questionnaire. A proficiency benchmark was set based on the mean score of experts on the same questionnaire.

The PBP group needed to do this after doing an online curriculum during which the operative metrics were explained. In order to move forward to the clinical training in the lab, they had to show proficiency on the test by reaching a pre-defined benchmark.

The Control group needed to do the online assessment after their day of training and after performing the final VUA. The investigators noted a significant correlation between the score on the online assessment and the number of metrics-based performance errors. The lower the score on the online test, the more performance errors they made.

The aim of this paper will be to stipulate the importance of e-learning and online scoring and its correlation with surgical performance.