Intraoperative time out to promote the implementation of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a video-based assessment of 343 procedures

Background: The critical view of safety (CVS) is poorly adopted in surgical practices although it is ubiquitously recommended to prevent major bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This study aims to determine whether performing a short intraoperative time out can improve CVS implementation. Methods: Surgeons performing LCs at an academic centre were invited to perform a 5-second long time out to verify CVS before dividing the cystic duct (5-second rule). The primary endpoint was to compare the rate of CVS achievement between LCs performed in the year before and the year after the 5-second rule. The CVS achievement rate was computed using the mediated video-based assessment of two independent reviewers. Clinical outcomes, LC workflows, and postoperative reports were also compared. Results: Three hundred and forty-three (171 before and 172 after the 5-second rule) of the 381 LCs performed over the 2-year study were analysed. After the implementation of the 5-second rule, the rate of CVS achievement increased significantly (15.9 vs 44.1 %; P<0.001) as well as the rate of bailout procedures (8.2 vs 15.7 %; P=0.045), the median time to clip the cystic duct or artery (17:26 [interquartile range: 16:46] vs 23:12 [17:16] minutes; P=0.007), and the rate of postoperative CVS reporting (1.3 vs 28.8 %; P<0.001). Morbidity was comparable (1.75 vs 2.33 % before and after the 5-second rule respectively; P=0.685). Conclusion: Performing a short intraoperative time out improves CVS implementation during LC. Systematic intraoperative cognitive aids should be studied to sustain the uptake of guidelines.

PDF Abstract
No code implementations yet. Submit your code now

Tasks


Datasets


  Add Datasets introduced or used in this paper

Results from the Paper


  Submit results from this paper to get state-of-the-art GitHub badges and help the community compare results to other papers.

Methods


No methods listed for this paper. Add relevant methods here