Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of intraoperative distractions on severe technical events in laparoscopic bariatric surgery

  • 2020 SAGES Oral
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Given the complexity of the operating room (OR), it is unsurprising that surgeons frequently feel distracted while performing operative tasks. However, this relationship is not well studied in live surgeries. The objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between intraoperative distractions and technical events using surgical data.

Methods

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass operation data from three tertiary care hospitals in Toronto, Canada were collected prospectively between 2017 and 2019 by a comprehensive operative capture platform (OR Black Box) and analyzed retrospectively. Time-synchronized audiovisual recordings of the OR and laparoscopic videos of the operation were collected, along with clinical data from the electronic health record. Video data was labeled for technical data, non-technical data, and distractions by trained coders. Procedural steps were categorized based on criticality. The relationship between severe technical events (case having 0 or 1 events vs. 2 or more) and the rate of distractions (machine alarms, external communications, people entering/exiting) in critical procedural steps was assessed through logistic regression, adjusting for team factors (surgeons’ technical skills, nurse changeovers).

Results

60 Roux-en-Y cases were analyzed. Average case duration was 83.2 min (SD = 21.97). Distractions occurred 47.6 times/h (SD = 20.3), with most frequent distraction being machine alarms (4.45/10 min, SD = 2.88). For unadjusted analysis, alarms (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.05–1.66) and surgeon’s technical skills (OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.43–0.93) were found to be correlated with severe technical events. After adjusting for team factors, alarms were found to be positively related with the presence of severe technical events (OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.18–2.33) during high-criticality procedural steps.

Conclusions

This study showed a significant association between intraoperative distractions, in particular machine alarms, and severe technical events during high-criticality procedural steps. Further investigation will assess the temporal relationship between distractions and technical events and assess mitigation strategies to create a safer surgical environment.

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

References

  1. Jung JJ, Elfassy J, Grantcharov T (2019) Factors associated with surgeon’s perception of distraction in the operating room. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07088-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Mentis HM, Chellali A, Manser K, Cao CGL, Schwaitzberg SD (2016) A systematic review of the effect of distraction on surgeon performance: directions for operating room policy and surgical training. Surg Endosc 30:1713–1724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4443-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sevdalis N, Undre S, Mcdermott J, Giddie J, Diner L, Smith G (2014) Impact of intraoperative distractions on patient safety: a prospective descriptive study using validated instruments. World J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2315-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Persoon MC, Broos HJHP, Witjes JA, Hendrikx AJM, Scherpbier AJJM (2011) The effect of distractions in the operating room during endourological procedures. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1186-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vincent C, Moorthy K, Sarker SK, Chang A, Darzi AW (2004) Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann Surg 239:475–482. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000118753.22830

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Wiegmann DA, Elbardissi AW, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Sundt TM III (2007) Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation. Surgery 142:658–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.07.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Langerman A, Grantcharov TP (2017) Are we ready for our close-up? Ann Surg 266:934–936. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jung JJ, Jüni P, Lebovic G, Grantcharov T (2018) First-year analysis of the Operating Room Black Box Study. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000002863

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sevdalis N, Forrest D, Undre S, Darzi A, Vincent C (2008) Annoyances, disruptions, and interruptions in surgery: The Disruptions in Surgery Index (DiSI). World J Surg 32:1643–1650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9624-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jung JJ, Jüni P, Gee DW, Zak Y, Cheverie J, Yoo JS, Morton JM, Grantcharov T (2020) Development and evaluation of a novel instrument to measure severity of intraoperative events using video data. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bonrath EM, Zevin B, Dedy NJ, Grantcharov TP (2013) Error rating tool to identify and analyse technical errors and events in laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 100:1080–1088. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, Macrae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, Brown M (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84:273–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800840237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Healey AN, Sevdalis N, Vincent CA (2006) Measuring intra-operative interference from distraction and interruption observed in the operating theatre. Ergonomics 49:589–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600568899

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hatala R, Cook DA, Brydges R, Hawkins R (2015) Constructing a validity argument for the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS): a systematic review of validity evidence. Adv Health Sci Educ 20:1149–1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9593-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Siegel S, Castellan NJ (1988) The case of k related samples Nonparametric statistics for behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 170–174

    Google Scholar 

  17. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing

  18. Wadhera RK, Parker SH, Burkhart HM, Greason KL, Neal JR, Levenick KM, Wiegmann DA, Sundt TM (2010) Is the “sterile cockpit” concept applicable to cardiovascular surgery critical intervals or critical events? The impact of protocol-driven communication during cardiopulmonary bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 139:312–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.10.048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Friedrich MG, Boos M, Pagel M, Thormann T, Berakdar A, Russo S, Tirilomis T (2017) New technical solution to minimise noise exposure for surgical staff: the silent operating theatre optimisation system. BMJ Innov 3:196–205. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2016-000188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ng R, Chahine S, Lanting B, Howard J (2019) Unpacking the literature on stress and resiliency: a narrative review focused on learners in the operating room. J Surg Educ 76:343–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.07.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kyrillos R, Caissie M (2017) Effect of music on surgical skill during simulated intraocular surgery. Can J Ophthalmol 52:538–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2017.04.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sasangohar F, Donmez B, Easty AC, Trbovich PL (2015) The relationship between interruption content and interrupted task severity in intensive care nursing: an observational study. Int J Nurs Stud 52:1573–1581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.06.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sasangohar F, Donmez B, Easty A, Storey H, Trbovich P (2014) Interruptions experienced by cardiovascular intensive care unit nurses: an observational study. J Crit Care 29:848–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.05.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yang C, Heinze J, Helmert J, Weitz J, Reissfelder C, Mees ST (2017) Impaired laparoscopic performance of novice surgeons due to phone call distraction: a single-centre, prospective study. Surg Endosc 31:5312–5317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5609-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Avidan A, Yacobi G, Weissman C, Levin PD (2017) Cell phone calls in the operating theater and staff distractions: an observational study. J Patient Saf. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Teter J, Guajardo I, Al-Rammah T, Rosson G, Perl TM, Manahan M (2017) Assessment of operating room airflow using air particle counts and direct observation of door openings. Am J Infect Control 45:477–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2016.12.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Andersson AE, Bergh I, Karlsson J, Eriksson BI, Nilsson K (2012) Traffic flow in the operating room: an explorative and descriptive study on air quality during orthopedic trauma implant surgery. Am J Infect Control 40:750–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2011.09.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Perez P, Holloway J, Ehrenfeld L, Cohen S, Cunningham L, Miley GB, Hollenbeck BL (2018) Door openings in the operating room are associated with increased environmental contamination. Am J Infect Control 46:954–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.03.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lynch RJ, Englesbe MJ, Sturm L, Bitar A, Budhiraj K, Kolla S, Polyachenko Y, Duck MG, Campbell DA (2009) Measurement of foot traffic in the operating room: implications for infection control. Am J Med Qual 24:45–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860608326419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Panahi P, Stroh M, Casper DS, Parvizi J, Austin MS (2012) Operating room traffic is a major concern during total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2252-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Wahr JA, Prager RL, Abernathy JH, Martinez EA, Salas E, Seifert PC, Groom RC, Spiess BD, Searles BE, Sundt TM, Sanchez JA, Shappell SA, Culig MH, Lazzara EH, Fitzgerald DC, Thourani VH, Eghtesady P, Ikonomidis JS, England MR, Sellke FW, Nussmeier NA (2013) Patient safety in the cardiac operating room: human factors and teamwork: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 128:1139–1169. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182a38efa

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O’Reilly A, Oerline M, Carlin AM, Nunn AR, Dimick J, Banerjee M, Birkmeyer NJO (2013) Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 369:1434–1442. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1300625

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hsu KE, Man FY, Gizicki RA, Feldman LS, Fried GM (2008) Experienced surgeons can do more than one thing at a time: effect of distraction on performance of a simple laparoscopic and cognitive task by experienced and novice surgeons. Surg Endosc 22:196–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9452-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cook RI, Render M, Woods DD (2000) Gaps in the continuity of care and progress on patient safety. BMJ 320:791–794. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.791

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Karthik Raj, Amar Chaudhry, Alex Ahn, Stephen Townsend for their technical help, and Dr. Bijan Dastgheib, Dr. Qurrat Tahir, and Dr. Sara Elkabany for their participation in clinical discussions.

Funding

The funding for this work was provided by several sources: the Stipend of Suzan Ayas was provided by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant (RGPIN-2016-05580) and the University of Toronto Centre for Healthcare Engineering. The Stipend of Dr. Lauren Gordon was provided by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship Doctoral Award (CGD-D), the John L Provan Fellowship in Surgical Education administered by the University of Toronto, and the University of Toronto Department of Surgery.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, 5 King’s College Rd., Toronto, ON, M5S 3G8, Canada

    Suzan Ayas & Birsen Donmez

  2. Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Lauren Gordon

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Teodor Grantcharov

Authors
  1. Suzan Ayas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lauren Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Birsen Donmez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Teodor Grantcharov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Birsen Donmez.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dr. Teodor Grantcharov holds Intellectual Property Ownership of Surgical Safety Technologies, Inc. and is supported by Research Grants from Medtronic Canada, Ethicon Canada, Baxter Canada, Olympus Canada, Takeda Canada, and Intuitive Surgical. Suzan Ayas, Dr. Lauren Gordon, and Dr. Birsen Donmez have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

See Table

Table 6 SEVERE framework [10] illustrating the types of events identified and their corresponding severity rating descriptions
Full size table

6.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ayas, S., Gordon, L., Donmez, B. et al. The effect of intraoperative distractions on severe technical events in laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Surg Endosc 35, 4569–4580 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07878-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07878-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation