Which Is Better? "Live" Surgical Broadcasts vs "As-Live" Surgical Broadcasts

Ten years of live surgical broadcast at Charité-MAYO conferences (2010–2019): a systematic evaluation of the surgical outcome

Objective

The international Charité-MAYO Conference aims to promote international dialog on diagnostics, management, scientific breakthroughs, and state-of-the-art surgical procedures in gynecology and gynecologic oncology and senology. Live surgeries are a fundamental tool of interdisciplinary and international exchange of experts in their respective fields. Currently, there is a controversial and emotional debate about the true value, risks, and safety of live surgical broadcasts. The aim of the current study is to analyze peri-operative risks in patients who were operated live during the Charité-MAYO Conferences.

Methods

Live surgeries were performed by the core Charité team consisting of gynecologic oncologic surgeons, breast and plastic surgeons, partly in collaboration with visiting gynecologic oncologic surgeons. We performed a retrospective analysis of live surgeries performed during seven Charité-MAYO Conferences from 2010 to 2019 held in Berlin, Germany. Patients’ files and tumor databases were analyzed as required and patients were contacted to update their long-term follow-up.

Results

Sixty-nine patients who were operated live were included. The types of surgery were as follows: urogynecologic procedures (n=13), breast surgery (n=21), and gynecologic oncology surgery for ovarian, uterine, vulvar or cervical cancer (n=35). Peri-operative complications were assessed according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. Despite a high rate of complete resection and the high frequency of multivisceral procedures, the rate of peri-operative complications was within the range published in the literature. Time of surgery and length of intensive unit care and hospital stay did not differ from data acquired at the home institution.

Conclusions

Based on our analysis, live surgeries appear to be safe when performed within a multidisciplinary setting without an increase in surgical morbidity and mortality compared with historical controls and without compromise of patients’ outcome. This is the first analysis of its kind to set the basis for patient information and consent for this type of surgeries.

Risks and Benefits of Live Surgical Broadcast: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Live surgical broadcast (LSB), also known as live surgery, has become a popular format for many types of surgical education meetings. However, concerns have been raised in relation to patient safety, ethical issues, and the actual educational value of LSB.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize current evidence on LSB with a focus on the risks of complications and the educational impact.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic review of the literature according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies up to December 2020. We identified original articles reporting on patient outcomes, educational value, current use, and development of LSB. We also interrogated surgical society guidelines for position statements on LSB.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Our literature search identified 46 studies spanning six surgical specialties, with urology being the most frequent. Approximately half of the studies reported on outcomes of surgical procedures during LSB. In urology, the few comparative studies available did not suggest higher complication rates in LSB, whereas data for other surgical fields highlighted evidence of worse outcomes. Four studies assessed the educational value of LSB via survey administration, for which the evidence is limited and of low quality. Thirteen guidelines and position statements on live surgery were identified among major surgical societies, including the European Association of Urology (EAU). Some surgical societies have expressly prohibited the use of LSB at their major meetings. The perspective of surgeons performing and/or attending live surgical sessions was evaluated in six studies, and four studies looked at urologists' perception of LSB compared to semi-LSB. Limitations of this systematic review include the limited number of studies available, the low quality of the evidence, and data heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding outcomes of LSB is limited. Almost all the studies do not show a higher risk of complications or worse outcomes for patients undergoing a procedure during LSB. Only one study on gastrointestinal surgery reported that LSB outcomes were worse. Ongoing concerns have led to specific guidelines by several scientific societies, including the EAU, with the ultimate aim of minimizing surgical risks and maximizing patient safety.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Live surgery events are often part of surgical conferences. Data in the literature show mixed outcomes for operations performed during live surgery events, but with no increase in complication rates. Safety and ethical concerns remain. Other educational tools, such as prerecorded videos and live surgery transmission from the home institution of the operating surgeon might become preferred options in the future. This review was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO website (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, registration number CRD42020194023).

Outcomes of EAU-endorsed Live Surgical Events over a 5-year Period (2015-2020) and Updated Guidelines from the EAU Live Surgery Committee

CONTEXT

Live surgery events (LSEs) have been used in all surgical fields for education and training and to demonstrate new techniques. The European Association of Urology (EAU) live surgery guidelines were established in 2014.

OBJECTIVE

To review the compliance of outcomes for procedures performed at EAU-affiliated LSEs with the 2014 guidelines and to establish updated guidelines for LSEs and semi-LSEs.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Patients from EAU-affiliated LSEs were included for all surgical procedures carried out between January 2015 and January 2020. All these events were pre-evaluated by the EAU Live Surgery Committee and met the criteria for an EAU LSE, with outcomes recorded and submitted to the registry. Data were collected for the type of procedure and for intraoperative and short- and long-term complications.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 246 procedures were performed across 18 LSEs, with an annual volume ranging from 19 to 74 procedures. These included 109 (44.3%) robot-assisted procedures, 21 (8.5%) laparoscopic procedures, 10 (4%) transurethral bladder procedures, 11 (4.4%) prostate enucleation procedures, 72 (29.2%) endourological procedures, and 23 (9.3%) andrology or reconstruction procedures. A total of 77 different surgical techniques and variations for 55 different types of surgery were performed as LSEs over the past 5 yr. There were 44 (17.8%) short-term complications and 11.3% (nine/79) long-term complications observed, with Clavien grade III/IV complications seen in 5.2% and 7.5% of cases over short- and long-term follow-up, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-yr outcomes for EAU LSEs show that they are safe and follow previous guidelines set by the panel. It seems likely that the fine balance between patient safety and educational value might be best achieved if LSEs are performed by local surgeons in their parent hospital with patients and staff they know, and that technological advances will make live streaming a seamless process. The current EAU Live Surgery Committee has updated the guidelines on LSEs and provided new guidelines for semi-live events.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed 5-year outcomes for live surgery events endorsed by the European Association of Urology. We found that the operations carried out at these events were safe and followed the guidelines previously set. We have updated the guidelines and provided new guidelines for semi-live events.

Live surgery: Safety study after 17 editions of retroperitoneoscopic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Live surgery has become an excellent tool for medical training. Despite this, there is controversy about the safety of the patients involved.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the results of live surgeries performed in 17 consecutive retroperitoneoscopy courses organized in our center. Procedures performed were partial nephrectomy (PN), radical nephrectomy (RN) and nephroureterectomy (NU).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Review from January 2010 to October 2017 of all live surgeries carried out by an expert surgical team in the retroperitoneoscopy courses, compared with a control group of surgeries performed in standard conditions. A matching (1:1 for each RN and 1:2 for each PN and NU) according to age, body mass index and comorbidities was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one live surgeries were analyzed (eight PN, seven RN and six NU) with a global median follow-up of 38 months. No significant differences were observed between both groups in terms of perioperative variables (operative time, operative bleeding and intraoperative complications) or of postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. Likewise, there were no differences between recurrence rates (PN: 0% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.47, NU: 33.3% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.180, RN: 0% vs. 28.6%, p = 0,127).

CONCLUSIONS

Live surgery in the hands of expert surgeons in a suitable environment and with well-selected patients does not increase the risk of complications and allows maintaining the same oncological outcomes.

Evaluation of Live Surgery Meetings: Our Experience with the "Live Makeover Aesthetic Surgery Symposium"

Live Surgery Meetings have been established as a vey effective means to demonstrate certain surgical techniques and intraoperative decision-making. However, many authors still question the ethics of this approach. We present our experience as organizers of the Live Makeover Aesthetic Surgery Symposium, an annual international live surgery meeting taking place in Athens, Greece.

Learning benefits of live surgery and semi-live surgery in urology-informing the debate with results from the International Meeting of Reconstructive Urology (IMORU) VIII

Purpose

To analyze the perceived learning opportunities of participants of the International Meeting on Reconstructive Urology (IMORU) VIII for both live surgery demonstrations (LSD) and semi-live surgery demonstrations (SLSD). Safety and educational efficacy of LSD and SLSD at live surgery events (LSE) have been debated extensively, however, objective data comparing learning benefits are missing.

Methods

We conducted a detailed survey, which employed the Kirkpatrick model, a well-established assessment method of training models, to investigate participants preferences as well as the learning benefit of LSE. Furthermore, we employed an audience response system and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS), a well-established assessment method of surgery skills, to let our participants rate the perceived learning opportunity of LSD and SLSD.

Results

Of 229 participants at the IMORU VIII, 39.7% returned our questionnaires. 90% stated that they prefer LSD. On all levels of Kirkpatrick’s training evaluation model, the IMORU received high ratings, suggesting a high learning benefit. For the assessment of OSATS, a total of 23 surgical cases were evaluable. For all six utilized items, LSD scored significantly better ratings than SLSD.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that there is still a rationale for LSD, as participants attributed a statistically significant higher learning benefit to LSD over SLDS. Evaluation of the survey showed that for LSE such as the IMORU VIII, a high learning benefit can be expected. Considering that most of our participants are active surgeons with high caseloads, their opinion on the educational value of LSE is of high relevance.

Surgical teaching in urology: patient safety and educational value of 'LIVE' and 'SEMI-LIVE' surgical demonstrations

Purpose

To evaluate the opinion of urologists and their audience regarding patient safety and educational value of live surgical demonstrations (LSD) and semi-live surgical demonstrations (semi-LSD).

Methods

Following the ‘2017 Challenges in Endourology’ meeting, a survey addressing patient safety and the educational value of LSD and semi-LSD was disseminated online to all participants. Survey outcomes of LSD and semi-LSD were compared.

Results

All 279 respondents attended both LSD and semi-LSD. Overall, 53% of said respondents stated that patient safety was always the highest priority for LSD, while 74% noted the same for semi-LSD. The complication risk in LSD was perceived equal by 57% of the respondents when compared to cases of similar difficulty in routine practice, while 38% perceived it as a greater risk. For semi-LSD, the complication risk was perceived equal by 84%, while 5% perceived it to be a greater risk in comparison to general practice. On a scale from 0 (no value) to 10 (highly valuable), the average educational value of LSD and semi-LSD was rated 8.4 and 8.3, respectively. A substantial percentage of the surgeons who perform LSD express concerns that live surgery is not the optimal setting to ensure patient safety.

Conclusions

LSD remains a popular tool for surgical education among urologists and their audience. However, patient safety remains a concern and is perceived less of a concern for semi-LSD. The educational value of LSD and semi-LSD was scored equally high. Therefore, we should consider to advocate the use of semi-LSD more often.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00345-018-2291-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Outcome from 5-year live surgical demonstrations in urinary stone treatment: are outcomes compromised?

PURPOSE

To compare intra- and post-operative outcomes of endourological live surgical demonstrations (LSDs) and routine surgical practice (RSP) for urinary stones.

METHODS

Consecutive ureterorenoscopic (URS) and percutaneous (PNL) urinary stone procedures over a 5-year period were reviewed. Procedures were divided into LSDs and RSP. Differences between the groups were separately analysed for URS and PNL. Primary outcomes included intra- and post-operative complication rates and grades. Secondary outcomes were operation time, length of hospital stay, stone-free rate, and retreatment rate. Pearson's Chi-square analysis, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic and linear regression were used to compare outcomes between LSDs and RSP.

RESULTS

During the study period, we performed 666 URSs and 182 PNLs, and 151 of these procedures were LSDs. Among URSs, the overall intra-operative complication rate was 3.2% for LSDs and 2.5% for RSP (p = 0.72) and the overall post-operative complication rate was 13.7% for LSDs and 8.8% for RSP (p = 0.13). Among PNLs, the overall intra-operative complication rate was 8.9% for LSDs and 5.6% for RSP (p = 0.52) and the overall post-operative complication rate was 28.6% for LSDs and 34.9% for RSP (p = 0.40). For both URSs and PNLs, no statistically significant differences in complication grade scores were observed between LSDs and RSP. Operation time was significantly longer for LSD-URS group, but there was no difference between the PNL groups. There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay and stone-free rate. The retreatment rate was higher in the LSD-URS group compared with RSP-URS group but similar between the PNL groups. Multiple logistic regression analyses, adjusting for confounders, revealed no association between LSD and more or less favourable outcomes as compared to RSP.

CONCLUSION

Live surgical demonstrations do not seem to compromise patients' safety and outcomes when performed by specialised endourologists.