How often do surgeons obtain the critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy?

Background: The reported incidence (0.16-1.5 %) of bile duct injury (BDI) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is higher than during open cholecystectomy and has not decreased over time despite increasing experience with the procedure. The "critical view of safety" (CVS) technique may help to prevent BDI when certain criteria are met prior to division of any structures. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of practicing surgeons to the CVS criteria during LC and the impact of a training intervention on CVS identification.

Methods: LC procedures of general surgeons were video-recorded. De-identified recordings were reviewed by a blinded observer and rated on a 6-point scale using the previously published CVS criteria. A coaching program was conducted, and participating surgeons were re-assessed in the same manner.

Results: The observer assessed ten LC videos, each involving a different surgeon. The CVS was adequately achieved by two surgeons (20 %). The remaining eight surgeons (80 %) did not obtain adequate CVS prior to division of any structures, despite two surgeons dictating that they did; the mean score of this group was 1.75. After training, five participating surgeons (50 %) scored > 4, and the mean increased from 1.75 (baseline) to 3.75 (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: The CVS criteria were not routinely used by the majority of participating surgeons. Further, one-fourth of those who claimed to obtain the CVS did so inadequately. All surgeons who participated in training showed improvement during their post-assessment. Our findings suggest that education of practicing surgeons in the application of the CVS during LC can result in increased implementation and quality of the CVS. Pending studies with larger samples, our findings may partly explain the sustained BDI incidence despite increased experience with LC. Our study also supports the value of direct observation of surgical practices and subsequent training for quality improvement.