J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Oct 18:S1553-4650(20)31087-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.10.007. Online ahead of print.
OBJECTIVE: To collect, summarize, and evaluate the currently available intraoperative rating tools used in abdominal minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS).
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases from January 1, 2000 to May 12, 2020 METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: : A systematic search strategy was designed and executed. Published studies evaluating an assessment tool in abdominal MIGS cases were included. Studies focused on simulation, reviews, and abstracts without a published manuscript were excluded. Risk of bias and methodologic quality were assessed for each study.
TABULATION: Disparate study methods prevented quantitative synthesis of the data.
INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: 10 studies were included in the analysis. Tools were grouped into global (n=4) and procedure specific assessments (n=6). Most studies evaluated small numbers of surgeons and lacked a comparison group to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool. All studies demonstrated content validity, at least one dimension of reliability, and 2 have external validity. The intraoperative procedure specific tools have been more thoroughly evaluated compared to the global scales.
CONCLUSIONS: Procedure specific intraoperative assessment tools for MIGS cases are more thoroughly evaluated compared to global tools; however, poor-quality studies and borderline reliability limit their use. Well designed, controlled studies evaluating the effectiveness of intraoperative assessment tools in MIGS are needed.