Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The educational quality of the critical view of safety in videos on youtube® versus specialized platforms: which is better? Critical view of safety in virtual resources

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The surgical education has evolved by adopting the visual platforms as a resource of searching. The videos complement the visual learning of surgical techniques of trainees, residents, and surgeons. YouTube® is the most frequently consulted platform in the surgical field. WebSurg® and GIBLIB® are two recognized medical platforms. The Critical View of Safety (CVS) is the most important and effective method to reduce the risk of bile duct injury (BDI) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Reaching a satisfactory CVS is a crucial point. We evaluated the CVS of videos on WebSurg® and GIBLIB®, comparing the results with those of the worldwide most popular video platform.

Methods

We performed a search under the term “Laparoscopic cholecystectomy” on the virtual platforms YouTube®, GIBLIB®, and WebSurg®. Three evaluators reviewed the 77 selected videos using the “Sanford-Strasberg’ CVS score.” The inferential analysis was performed between two groups: YouTube® and Non-YouTube (GIBLIB® and WebSurg®). The characteristics of each video were analyzed including country of origin, type of profile, number of views, and number of Likes.

Results

Satisfactory CVS obtained from each of the platforms was GIBLIB® 40%; WebSurg® 44.4%; YouTube® 27.7%. The comparative analysis of CVS quality and CVS score for the Non-YouTube and YouTube® groups did not show a significant difference (p = 0.142, p = 0.377, respectively).

Conclusion

The videos on GIBLIB® and WebSurg® offer a higher probability of satisfactory CVS compared to YouTube®. Nevertheless, there is no significant superiority of GIBLIB® and WebSurg® over YouTube®.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Pugh CM, Andrew Watson M (2009) Surgical Education in the Internet Era. J Surg Res 182:177–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2009.03.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rapp AK, Healy MG, Charlton ME et al (2016) YouTube is the Most Frequently Used Educational Video Source for Surgical Preparation. J Surg Educ 73:1072–1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.04.024

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. (2020) MerchDope. https://merchdope.com/youtube-stats/

  4. Alexa Internet, Inc. The top 500 sites on the web. https://www.alexa.com/topsites.

  5. Balakrishnan JGM (2017) Social media addiction: What is the role of content in YouTube? J Behav Addict 6:364–377. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.058

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. WebSurg. https://websurg.com/en/contribute/new

  7. Mutter D, Vix M, Dallemagne BD et al (2011) WeBSurg : An Innovative Educational Web Site in Minimally Invasive Surgery — Principles and Results. IRCAD World View Innov 18:8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350611398880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Michelson G (2019) MICHELSON 20MM. https://20mm.org/2019/08/09/an-interview-with-brian-conyer-of-giblib/

  9. GIBLIB. https://app.giblib.com/surgical

  10. Decker MR, Dodgion CKA (2014) Specialization and the Current Practices of General Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 218:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.08.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van De Graaf FW, Zaïmi I, Stassen LPS et al (2018) Safe Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review of Bile Duct Injury Prevention. Int J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.11.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Club TSS (1991) A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies: The southern surgeons club. N Engl J Med 324:1073–1078. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199104183241601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Strasberg SM, Hertl MSN (1995) An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 180:101–125

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Strasberg SMBL (2010) Rationale and Use of the Critical View of Safety in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Am Coll Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.02.053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Singh RLBM (2018) Critical view of safety — its feasibility and efficacy in preventing bile duct injuries. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg. https://doi.org/10.21037/ales.2017.12.04

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Buddingh KT, Nieuwenhuijs VB, Van Buuren L, Hulscher JBF, De Jong JS, Van Dam GM (2011) Intraoperative assessment of biliary anatomy for prevention of bile duct injury: A review of current and future patient safety interventions. Surg Endosc 25:2449–2461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1639-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Pucher PH et al (2015) SAGES expert Delphi consensus: critical factors for safe surgical practice in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 29:3074–3085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4079-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sanford DE SS (2014) A Simple Effective Method for Generation of a Permanent Record of the Critical View of Safety during Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy by Intraoperative “ Doublet ” Photography. Am Coll Surg 170–178

  19. Plaisier PW, Pauwels MMALJ (2001) Quality control in laparoscopic cholecystectomy : operation notes, video or photo print ? HPB 3:197–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Emous M, Westerterp M, Wind J, Eerenberg JP, Van GAAW (2010) Registering the critical view of safety photo or video ? Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-0997-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mascagni P, Fiorillo C, Urade T et al (2019) Formalizing video documentation of the Critical View of Safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy : a step towards artificial intelligence assistance to improve surgical safety. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07149-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brunt LM, Deziel DJ, Telem DA, Strasberg SM, Aggarwal R, Asbun H, Bonjer J, McDonald M, Alseidi A, Ujiki M, Riall TS, Hammill C, Moulton CA, Pucher PH, Parks RW, Ansari MT, Connor S, Dirks RC, Anderson B, Altieri MS, Tsamalaidze L, Stefanidis D (2020) Safe Cholecystectomy Multi-society Practice Guideline and State of the Art Consensus Conference on Prevention of Bile Duct Injury During Cholecystectomy. Ann Surg 272: 3–23 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003791

  23. Gupta V, Jain G (2019) Safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Adoption of universal culture of safety in cholecystectomy. World J Gastrointest Surg 11:62–84. https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v11.i2.62

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. SAGES. https://www.sages.org/safe-cholecystectomy-program/

  25. Heistermann HP, Tobusch APD (2006) Der Sicherheits-Blick ‘‘ als Beitrag zur Risikoreduktion bei der laparoskopischen Cholezystektomie. Zentralbl Chir 131:460–465. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-957031

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Avgerinos C, Kelgiorgi D, Touloumis Z et al (2009) One Thousand Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies in a Single Surgical Unit Using the “ Critical View of Safety ” Technique. J Gastrointest Surg 13:498–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-008-0748-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tsalis K, Antoniou N, Koukouritaki Z et al (2015) Open-access Technique and “Critical View of Safety” as the Safest Way to Perform Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 25:119–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nijssen MAJ, Schreinemakers JMJ, Meyer Z et al (2015) Complications After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy : A Video Evaluation Study of Whether the Critical View of Safety was Reached. World J Surg 39:1798–1803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-2993-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kaya B, Fersahoglu MM, Kilic F et al (2017) Importance of critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy : a survey of 120 serial patients, with no incidence of complications. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 21:17–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Costamagna GBI (2013) Current treatment of benign biliary strictures. Ann Gastroenterol 26:37–40

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Giménez ME, Houghton EJ, Zeledón ME et al (2018) The critical view of safety prevents the appearance of biliary injuries? Analysis of a survey, ABCD Arq Bras Cir Dig, p 31

    Google Scholar 

  32. Deal SBAA (2017) Concerns of Quality and Safety in Public Domain Surgical Education Videos: An Assessment of the Critical View of Safety in Frequently Used Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Videos. J Am Coll Surg 225:725–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.08.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rodriguez H, Young MT, Jackson HT et al (2017) Viewer discretion advised: is YouTube a friend or foe in surgical education? Surg Endosc 32:1724–1728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5853-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ferhatoglu MF, Kartal AFA (2019) Comparison of New Era ’ s Education Platforms, YouTube ® and WebSurg ®, in Sleeve Gastrectomy. Obes Surg 29:3472–3477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Strasberg SM, Pucci MJ, Brunt LM, Deziel DJ (2016) Subtotal Cholecystectomy-"Fenestrating" vs “reconstituting” Subtypes and the Prevention of Bile Duct Injury: Definition of the Optimal Procedure in Difficult Operative Conditions. J Am Coll Surg 222:89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.09.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Strasberg SM (2019) A three-step conceptual roadmap for avoiding bile duct injury in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: an invited perspective review. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 26:123–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Allemann P, Schafer M, Demartines N (2010) Critical appraisal of single port access cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. de Favaro M (2018) Single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Technical aspects and results. Arq Bras Cir Dig 31:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020180001e1388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Evers L, Bouvy N, Branje D, Peeters A (2017) Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 31:3437–3448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5381-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Hospital Central Sur de Alta Especialidad, PEMEX, 7th Floor, Periférico Sur 4091 Fuentes del Pedregal, Tlalpan, 14140, Mexico City, Mexico

    Antonio Marmolejo Chavira, Ana Paula Ruiz Funes Molina, Alejandro Cruz Zárate & Víctor José Cuevas Osorio

  2. Department of Surgery, Director of Surgical Residency Program, Hospital Central Sur de Alta Especialidad, PEMEX, 7th Floor, Periférico Sur 4091 Fuentes del Pedregal, Tlalpan, 14140, Mexico City, Mexico

    Jorge Farell Rivas

  3. Department of Clinical Pathology, Hospital Universitario “Dr. José E. González”, Av. Francisco I. Madero Pte. Mitras Centro, 1st Floor, 64460, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico

    Sergio Ayala de la Cruz

  4. Department of Transplants, Hospital Central Sur de Alta Especialidad, PEMEX, 10th Floor, Periférico Sur 4091 Fuentes del Pedregal, Tlalpan, 14140, Mexico City, Mexico

    Alfonso Bandin Musa

Authors
  1. Antonio Marmolejo Chavira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorge Farell Rivas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Paula Ruiz Funes Molina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sergio Ayala de la Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alejandro Cruz Zárate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alfonso Bandin Musa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Víctor José Cuevas Osorio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Marmolejo Chavira.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Antonio Marmolejo Chavira, Jorge Farell Rivas, Ana Paula Ruiz Funes Molina, Sergio Ayala de la Cruz, Alejandro Cruz Zárate, Alfonso Bandin Musa and Víctor José Cuevas have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chavira, A.M., Rivas, J.F., Molina, A.P.R.F. et al. The educational quality of the critical view of safety in videos on youtube® versus specialized platforms: which is better? Critical view of safety in virtual resources. Surg Endosc 36, 337–345 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08286-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08286-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation