Rating surgical field quality in endoscopic ear surgery: proposal and validation of the "Modena Bleeding Score".
Bleeding
Endoscopic ear surgery
Endoscopic surgery
Middle ear surgery
Modena Bleeding Score
Surgical field rating
Journal
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
24
08
2018
accepted:
24
12
2018
pubmed:
4
1
2019
medline:
12
4
2019
entrez:
4
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To develop and validate a bleeding score that could be applied in endoscopic ear surgery (EEarS). A prospective validation study was performed. A new bleeding score, called "Modena Bleeding Score" (MBS), was created by the authors. It provides five grades for rating the surgical field during EEarS procedures (from grade 1-no bleeding to grade 5-bleeding that prevents every surgical procedure except those dedicated to bleeding control). A preliminary "face validity" was performed by 18 ENT specialists to assess possible misunderstandings in interpreting the scale. Then, 15 videos of endoscopic ear surgery procedures, each divided into three parts (t0, t1, and t2), were subsequently evaluated by 15 specialists, using MBS. The videos were randomly selected and assigned. Intra-rater reliability and inter-rater reliability were calculated. The clinical validity of the instrument was calculated using a referent standard (i.e., four ENT experts whose ratings were compared to those obtained by the former sample). The face validity showed a good consensus about the clarity and comprehension of the scale; both intra and inter-rater reliability demonstrated good performance (intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.741 to 0.991 and inter-rater reliability was 0.790); clinical validity also showed positive values, ranging from 0.75 to 0.93. MBS has proved to be an effective method to rate surgical field during EEarS, with good-to-excellent performances. Its use would possibly help comparisons of groups in clinical trials or comparisons between studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30604058
doi: 10.1007/s00405-018-05268-6
pii: 10.1007/s00405-018-05268-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
383-388Références
Laryngoscope. 2008 Feb;118(2):314-9
pubmed: 17989575
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013 May-Jun;9(3):330-8
pubmed: 22695215
Am J Rhinol. 2005 Sep-Oct;19(5):514-20
pubmed: 16270608
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013 Jun;3(6):474-81
pubmed: 23258603
Rhinology. 2016 Mar;54(1):38-44
pubmed: 26702455
Can J Anaesth. 1995 May;42(5 Pt 1):373-6
pubmed: 7614641
Laryngoscope. 2003 Aug;113(8):1369-73
pubmed: 12897561
J Res Pharm Pract. 2016 Oct-Dec;5(4):264-271
pubmed: 27843963
Nurs Res. 1984 May-Jun;33(3):152-6
pubmed: 6563532
J Laryngol Otol. 2010 Mar;124(3):242-50
pubmed: 19930748
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Jan;136(1):45-50
pubmed: 17210332
Br J Anaesth. 2008 Jan;100(1):50-4
pubmed: 17982167
Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2015 Oct;48(5):783-93
pubmed: 26318796