• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

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
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • 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
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • MIS Fellows 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
  • Search
    • Search the SAGES Site
    • Guidelines Search
    • Video Search
    • Search Images
    • Search Abstracts
  • OWLS/FLS
  • Login
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Understanding the Effect of the Critical View of Safety Criteria on Simulated Operative Decision- Making

Understanding the Effect of the Critical View of Safety Criteria on Simulated Operative Decision- Making

Adam Niemann, Niki Matsuko, Gurjit Sandhu, PhD, Oliver Varban, MD. University of Michigan

Background: Despite well-established criteria for identifying the critical view of safety (CVS) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, its direct effect on safe intra-operative decision-making is unclear.

Objective: Using surgical video review, our goal was to assess how likely participants would commit to dividing critical structures at various points of dissection when using the CVS criteria.

Methods: General surgery interns (n=10) at a single-center academic institution viewed a training module on the components of the CVS criteria and then independently reviewed 20 laparoscopic/robotic cholecystectomy videos lasting 1 minute each. Videos were edited at various points of CVS dissection of the CVS to include examples of both adequate and inadequate dissections. Participants were asked to identify the following components of the CVS criteria in the video: 1) Hepatocystic triangle cleared of fat and fibrous tissue; 2) Clearance of the lower 1/3rd of the cystic plate; 3) Two structures entering the gallbladder and 4) Doublet view was obtained; and decide if they thought the structures were safe to divide. Cohen’s kappa statistic was used to evaluate inter-rater agreement for each component of the CVS criteria.

Results: Inter-rater agreement among the components of the CVS criteria varied: Component 1 – k=0.2510, Component 2 – k=0.2771, Component 3 – k=0.4298 and Component 4 – k=0.4398. Participants chose to divide critical structures in all instances when all 4 components of the CVS were identified and decided to avoid division of structures in all instances when none of the components of the CVS were identified. Among cases in which only 1-3 components were identified, there was a higher likelihood of dividing critical structures when 3 criteria were met vs. 1 criteria (OR 6.95, p=0.017). Among cases in which critical structures were divided and only 1-3 components of the criteria were satisfied (28.8%), participants were most likely to omit the doublet view (57.1%).  

Conclusions: When reviewing videos of laparoscopic cholecystectomy at various points of dissection, participants were least likely to agree upon what constituted an adequate hepatocystic dissection or clearance of the lower 1/3rd of the cystic plate. Participants were also most likely to omit the doublet view criteria when dividing critical structures. Video-based assessments that include intraoperative decision-making can help identify variations in perceptions of anatomy as well as gaps in safe practices. 


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

Abstract ID: 87764

Program Number: S083

Presentation Session: MIS Education Session

Presentation Type: Podium

53


  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2025 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons