• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Technical performance does not correlate with completion of the critical view of safety as assessed by crowd worker and faculty expert evaluations of laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Technical performance does not correlate with completion of the critical view of safety as assessed by crowd worker and faculty expert evaluations of laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Shanley B Deal, MD1, Dimitrios Stefanidis, MD, PhD, FACS, FASMBS2, L. Michael Brunt, MD3, Adnan A Alseidi, MD, EdM1. 1Virginia Mason Medical Center, 2Indiana University, 3Washington University St. Louis

Introduction: Both faculty experts (FE) and crowd workers (CW) can be used to assess surgical skill. Whether greater technical performance translates to a surgeon’s ability to perform a task in an operation safely has not been explored. We sought to evaluate the relationship between technical performance, using the Global Objective Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) tool, and judgment as assessed by the critical view of safety (CVS) criteria in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods and Procedures: We prepared 160, blinded surgical videos of laparoscopic cholecystectomy from public domain websites. Videos were edited to ≤60 seconds and ended when a structure was cut/clipped. CW analyzed 160 videos using GOALS and the CVS modified doublet criteria in which points would be awarded if the component was seen in either the anterior or posterior view. We required a minimum of 50 crowd ratings per video. Videos were stratified into performance quartiles and 10 videos were randomly generated from each quartile (n=40 videos) that were rated by five FE from the SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Task Force, using both GOALS and the CVS criteria. Linear mixed effects models derived an average CW rating and FE rating for both GOALS and CVS for each video. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the correlation between performance measures. We did subset analysis of videos scoring an average CVS ≥5, which we defined as satisfactory completion of CVS. Videos with an averages GOALS ≥15 were considered top technical performers.

Results: A total of 617 CW generated 8,462 ratings across 160 videos in 24 hours. Five FE generated 200 ratings in 5 days and 6 hours. Average GOALS ratings and CVS ratings had a positive correlation with a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.77 (p<0.001) for CW and 0.71 (p<0.001) for FE. Sixteen videos were assigned a top technical performer rating by both CW and FE but the average CVS was inadequate (3.8 and 3.6 respectively) and the percentage of CVS≥5 was low (0% and 31% respectively). Performers with a CVS ≥5, as rated by FE, had an average GOALS score of 18.3.

Conclusions: Whether evaluated by FE or CW, there is a positive correlation between GOALS technical performance and completing more components of the CVS in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, it is critical to note that in this video analysis, high technical performers still did not achieve a complete CVS.


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 80514

Program Number: S113

Presentation Session: Education Technology, Teaching and Learning

Presentation Type: Podium

12

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals