Evidence supporting performance measures of laparoscopic appendectomy through a novel surgical proficiency assessment tool and low-cost laparoscopic training system

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic training remains inaccessible for surgeons in low- and middle-income countries, limiting its widespread adoption. We developed a novel tool for assessment of laparoscopic appendectomy skills through ALL-SAFE, a low-cost laparoscopy training system.

Methods: This pilot study in Ethiopia, Cameroon, and the USA assessed appendectomy skills using the ALL-SAFE training system. Performance measures were captured using the ALL-SAFE verification of proficiency tool (APPY-VOP), consisting of a checklist, modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (m-OSATS), and final rating. Twenty participants, including novice (n = 11), intermediate (n = 8), and expert (n = 1), completed an online module covering appendicitis management and psychomotor skills in laparoscopic appendectomy. After viewing an expert skills demonstration video, participants recorded their performance within ALL-SAFE. Using the APPY-VOP, participants rated their own and three peer videos. We used the Kruskal-Wallis test and a Many-Facet Rasch Model to evaluate (i) capacity of APPY-VOP to differentiate performance levels, (ii) correlation among three APPY-VOP components, and (iii) rating differences across groups.

Results: Checklist scores increased from novice (M = 21.02) to intermediate (M = 23.64) and expert (M = 28.25), with differentiation between experts and novices, P = 0.005. All five m-OSATS domains and global summed, total summed, and final rating discriminated across all performance levels (P < 0.001). APPY-VOP final ratings adequately discriminated Competent (M = 2.0), Borderline (N = 1.8), and Not Competent (M = 1.4) performances, Χ² (2,85) = 32.3, P = 0.001. There was a positive correlation between ALL-SAFE checklist and m-OSATS summed scores, r(83) = 0.63, P < 0.001. Comparison of ratings suggested no differences across expertise levels (P = 0.69) or location (P = 0.66).

Conclusion: APPY-VOP effectively discriminated between novice and expert performance in laparoscopic appendectomy skills in a simulated setting. Scoring alignment across raters suggests consistent evaluation, independent of expertise. These results support the use of APPY-VOP among all skill levels inside a peer rating system. Future studies will focus on correlating proficiency to clinical practice and scaling ALL-SAFE to other settings.

Keywords: Global health; Laparoscopic training; Laparoscopy; Low- and middle-income countries; Medical education; Surgical education.