Transvaginal cervical cerclage - How well do surgeons assess their own procedures?

Cervical cerclage Premature birth Simulation training Transvaginal cerclage

Journal

European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology
ISSN: 1872-7654
Titre abrégé: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 0375672

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
24 Sep 2024
Historique:
received: 13 08 2024
revised: 20 09 2024
accepted: 23 09 2024
medline: 29 9 2024
pubmed: 29 9 2024
entrez: 28 9 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

In women with cervical incompetence, transvaginal cerclage may help prevent preterm birth. However, training for this procedure poses challenges due to the low number of cases and difficulties in visualizing the operative field. Furthermore, the objective criteria for a successful cerclage procedure are not well-described. Quality assessment relies heavily on self-assessment rather than objective criteria and feedback. To address this issue, training on a simulator may offer a solution. We aimed to objectively assess surgical performance and compare it to the self-assessed performance in transvaginal cerclage procedures. During the Nordic Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG) congress in 2023, surgeons proficient in transvaginal cerclage procedures performed a transvaginal cerclage on a simulator. To compare the observed and self-assessed outcomes we obtained measurements on the cerclage height and number of bites from the detachable cervix, and from computed tomography scans we analyzed suture bite depth, reduction of cervix surface area, and whether cerclages had perforated the cervical canal. The same outcomes were self-assessed by each participant after the cerclage procedure. We visualized the continuous paired data in a Bland-Altman plot and compared these data with a paired t-test. Paired binary data was analyzed using McNemars test. 29 participants from eight different nationalities performed one transvaginal cerclage each. The mean height of the cerclage was 26.8 mm (SD 9 mm) and mean depth was 6.5 mm (SD 1.9 mm) across a mean of 4.1 (SD 0.8) bites. The mean reduction of the cervix surface area was 7.6 % (SD 5.9 %). Two sutures perforated the cervical canal. The participants significantly underestimated the height of their cerclage with a mean difference of 6.0 mm (95 % CI 2.1-9.9), (p 0.002), between the observed and the self-assessed height, but otherwise revealed good self-assessment of their performed procedure. Overall, the experienced cerclage surgeons showed a genuine insight into their surgical performance of a transvaginal cerclage. These results could warrant development of a procedural guidelines with objective measures, now reassured that surgeons are capable of self-assessing their procedures.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39340895
pii: S0301-2115(24)00527-X
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.09.033
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

268-272

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: G. Tydeman and A. H. Shennan are inventors of the simulator. G Tydeman receives personal royalties from Limbs&Things Ltd with A Shennan receiving royalties to his institution. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest.

Auteurs

Lea Kirstine Hansen (L)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: lea.hansen@clin.au.dk.

Andrew H Shennan (AH)

Department of Women and Children's Health, St Thomas' Hospital, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: andrew.shennan@kcl.ac.uk.

Emma Louise Eisland-Schmidt Christiansen (E)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: emma.louise.christiansen@live.dk.

Graham Tydeman (G)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, United Kingdom.

Laura Stirrat (L)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Electronic address: laurastirrat@hotmail.co.uk.

Rikke Bek Helmig (R)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: rikkhelm@rm.dk.

Niels Uldbjerg (N)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: uldbjerg@clin.au.dk.

Julie Glavind (J)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: Julie.glavind@clin.au.dk.

Classifications MeSH