Cross-sectional study demonstrates high reliability and skill differentiation of a novel suturing rating scale in surgical trainees, highlighting its utility for tracking simulator-based practice.
Background: Laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing and knot tying is a core minimally invasive surgical skill, but generic global rating instruments may not identify the task-specific technical errors needed for targeted feedback. We developed an 8-item performance rating scale for a standardized simulator task and evaluated its measurement properties. Methods: In a cross-sectional cohort, 82 participants across 5 training levels completed 1 interrupted laparoscopic suture consisting of 1 needle pass, 3 intracorporeal knots, and final cutting. Deidentified videos were independently scored by 3 raters. Interrater reliability was estimated using 2-way random effects, absolute-agreement intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Between-level performance was assessed using Kruskal–Wallis tests, Holm-adjusted pairwise comparisons, and Spearman correlation. Twelve learners completed the task before and after standardized training. Results: Quality scores differed across training levels ( P < .001) and correlated strongly with level (Spearman rho = 0.872, P < .001). Completion time decreased with level (rho = −0.897, P < .001). Total-score reliability was excellent (ICC[2,1] = 0.960; ICC[2,3] = 0.986). After training, mean quality score increased by 5.83 points, and completion time decreased by 29.17 seconds (both P < .001). Conclusions: The scale provides a reliable, reproducible method for video-based assessment of laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing and knot-tying performance. Its principal current use is to differentiate novice and early-stage operators and to track progress during simulator-based practice. More demanding tasks and multicenter evaluation are needed before use for advanced proficiency decisions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xia et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: