AzTrials
AzTrials

Hernia, InguinalNCT02545270

Validation of a Subjective Rating Scale for Assessment of the Surgical Workspace in Laparoscopy

A study testing Level of pneumoperitoneum 12-9-6 mmHg, Level of pneumoperitoneum 11-8-5 mmHg and Level of pneumoperitoneum 10-7-4 mmHg in people with Hernia, Inguinal, run by Herlev Hospital at 2 sites in Denmark.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

It is of great importance to obtain optimal surgical conditions for the surgeon in order to increase patient safety. The effect of different interventions on surgical conditions has been assessed by various surgeon-assessed rating scales. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Hernia, Inguinal
What is being tested?
Level of pneumoperitoneum 12-9-6 mmHg, Level of pneumoperitoneum 11-8-5 mmHg and Level of pneumoperitoneum 10-7-4 mmHg
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
16 participants
Where
2 sitesDenmark
Study dates
Mar 2016to Aug 2016
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Patients ≥ 18 years old
  • Elective laparoscopic inguinal herniotomy.
  • Can read and understand Danish

Who cannot join

  • Technical difficulties making video recording impossible.

Trial locations and contacts

2 sites in 1 country.

Denmark2 sites
  • Herlev Hospital

    Copenhagen

  • Gentofte Hospital

    Hellerup, Capital Region, 2900

Other trials in Denmark

About this study

It is of great importance to obtain optimal surgical conditions for the surgeon in order to increase patient safety. The effect of different interventions on surgical conditions has been assessed by various surgeon-assessed rating scales. A 5-point surgical rating scale has previously been tested in a proof-of-concept trial - but not validated - during radical retropubic prostatectomy by asking different surgeons to evaluate the surgical workspace using video sequences.

In an ongoing study (The Hernia Study, Trial registration NCT02247466) performed by investigators group, investigators are using a 5-point scale to rate the surgical workspace during laparoscopic ventral herniotomy with or without neuromuscular blockade. This scale is based on previously used scales by already published studies and has a description connected to each point. To the authors' knowledge the scale has never been validated in a laparoscopic setting, where the intra-abdominal pressure during pneumoperitoneum can have a great influence on visualization. In fact, to investigators knowledge, no validated surgeon-assessed rating scale regarding the surgical workspace during laparoscopic surgery does exists.

Read more

Purpose:

Primary aim:

To validate a 5-point rating scale by investigating the inter-rater agreement of evaluations of the surgical workspace at different intra-abdominal pressures. Using intra-abdominal video recordings.

Secondary aims:

To validate a 10-point rating scale by investigating the inter-rater agreement of evaluations of the surgical workspace at different intra-abdominal pressures.

To test the agreement between the two rating scales. To assess which of the two rating scales has the highest inter-rater agreement To assess the intra-rater agreement of both rating scales.

Hypothesis:

Investigators hypothesize that the 5-point rating scale has an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.6., validated by video-sequences obtained during laparoscopic surgery.

Read the detailed description

Scales:

The 5-point scale used to assess the surgical workspace during laparoscopic herniotomy:

  1. (Extremely poor conditions) Unable to complete surgery without interventions*
  2. (Poor conditions) Several minor adjustments needed to complete surgery. (ie. changes in patient positioning, surgeon position)
  3. (Acceptable conditions) After few minor adjustments surgery can be completed.
  4. (Good conditions) Surgical workspace is good, but there is some interference, but no need for adjustments.
  5. (Optimal conditions) Surgical workspace is optimal and procedure can be completed without any interference.
  • Interventions are defined as change in depth of neuromuscular blockade and/or pneumoperitoneum.

The 10-point scale used to assess the surgical workspace during laparoscopic herniotomy is a Visual Analog Scale, where the surgeon specify their rating of the surgical workspace by indicating a position along a continuous line between two end-points

Video recordings:

Elective laparoscopic inguinal hernia procedures will be used to make video-recordings under different levels of pneumoperitoneum during desufflation after surgery is completed.

Each video-sequence will last 20-30 seconds and. three video-sequences during different levels of pneumoperitoneum will be made from each patient. The patients are randomized to one of three groups regarding level of pneumoperitoneum during the three video-recordings. Group 1: 12-9-6 mmHg, 2: 11-8-5, 3: 10-7-4 mmHg. Three video-sequences during different levels of pneumoperitoneum (according to group allocation) will be made from each patient.

We will record 5 pilot video-sequences and have them evaluated by two experienced surgeons in order to design a standard setup for filming the surgical workspace.

From the 30 recorded video-sequences investigators will choose the 24 video-sequences best illustrating different levels of surgical workspace.

The video-sequences will be embedded in an internet form, and each sequence is followed by a question about the rating of that particular surgical workspace.

Each surgeon will be presented to the 24 sequences in a randomly selected recordings of different patients. After each recording the surgeon will evaluate the surgical work space on one of the two rating scales. After rating all recordings, using one scale, the recordings will repeat in a random order and the second scale should be used. When doing the assessment the surgeon should imagine that he/she is about to do a laparoscopic inguinal herniotomy, and the evaluation/rating is based on this situation.

The surgeons are not allowed to discuss their ratings with each other during the study.

To observe intra-rater agreement the surgeon will assess the same sequence at least twice using the same rating scale. Therefore the surgeons will see all recordings four times during the study.

Sample size requirements are calculated by estimating the width of the confidence interval(CI) as described by Shoukri et all. An ICC of 0.8 with a 95% CI of [0.6-1.0] can be achieved with 8 surgeons assessing 24 recordings. To ensure sufficient variation in the recordings investigators will include a total of 10 patients and make three recordings from each.

Sample size requirements are calculated by estimating the width of the confidence interval(CI) as described by Shoukri et all. An ICC of 0.8 with a 95% CI of [0.6-1.0] can be achieved with 8 surgeons assessing 24 recordings. To ensure sufficient variation in the recordings we will include a total of 10 patients and make three recordings from each. Investigators assume that the 24 recordings can be seen as 24 independent subjects.

Both the inter-rater agreement and the intra-rater agreement will be calculated using Kappa and intraclass correlation statistics. with statistical software6. The model for ICC will be a two-way random, single measures, absolute agreement, ( ICC(2,1) ) Calculated using SPSS (ver 22.0).

The agreement between the two rating scales will be tested with regression analysis using Spearman correlation coefficient.

To assess which of the two rating scales that has the highest inter-rater agreement the two scales corresponding ICC with confidence intervals will be compared.

Investigator and co-authors will be responsible for analyzing the study data with assistance from Statistician located at Herlev Hospital.

Investigators will include 8 surgeons (Specialist level of training and proficient in laparoscopic inguinal surgery).

Being tested
Level of pneumoperitoneum 12-9-6 mmHg, Level of pneumoperitoneum 11-8-5 mmHg, Level of pneumoperitoneum 10-7-4 mmHg
Keywords
Surgery, Laparoscopic, surgical rating scale
Medical subject headings
Hernia, Inguinal

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Level of pneumoperitoneum 12-9-6 mmHgProcedure or surgery

    Elective laparoscopic inguinal hernia procedures will be used to make video-recordings under 3 different levels of pneumoperitoneum (12-9-6 mmHg) during desufflation.

  • Level of pneumoperitoneum 11-8-5 mmHgProcedure or surgery

    Elective laparoscopic inguinal hernia procedures will be used to make video-recordings under 3 different levels of pneumoperitoneum (11-8-5 mmHg) during desufflation.

  • Level of pneumoperitoneum 10-7-4 mmHgProcedure or surgery

    Elective laparoscopic inguinal hernia procedures will be used to make video-recordings under 3 different levels of pneumoperitoneum (10-7-4 mmHg) during desufflation.

Study groups in NCT02545270
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Group 1: 12-9-6 mmHgExperimentalElective laparoscopic inguinal hernia procedures will be used to make three video-recordings (lasting 20-30 seconds) under different levels of pneumoperitoneum (12-9-6 mmHg) during desufflation after surgery is completed.
Receives: Procedure: Level of pneumoperitoneum 12-9-6 mmHg
Group 2: 11-8-5 mmHgExperimentalElective laparoscopic inguinal hernia procedures will be used to make three video-recordings (lasting 20-30 seconds) under different levels of pneumoperitoneum (11-8-5 mmHg) during desufflation after surgery is completed.
Receives: Procedure: Level of pneumoperitoneum 11-8-5 mmHg
Group 3: 10-7-4 mmHgExperimentalElective laparoscopic inguinal hernia procedures will be used to make three video-recordings (lasting 20-30 seconds) under different levels of pneumoperitoneum (10-7-4 mmHg) during desufflation after surgery is completed.
Receives: Procedure: Level of pneumoperitoneum 10-7-4 mmHg

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Inter-rater Agreement, 5-point Scale

    To validate a 5-point rating scale by investigating the inter-rater agreement of evaluations of the surgical workspace at different intra-abdominal pressures.

    The 5-point surgical rating scale is categorical, with following descriptions: 1 (Extremely poor conditions) Unable to complete surgery without interventions 2 (Poor conditions) Several minor adjustments needed to complete surgery. (e.g. changes in patient body position, surgeon position) 3 (Acceptable conditions) After few minor adjustments surgery can be completed. 4 (Good conditions) Surgical workspace is good, but there is some interference, but no need for adjustments.

    5 (Optimal conditions) Surgical workspace is optimal and procedure can be completed without any interference.

    Using intra-abdominal video recordings. The inter-rater agreement will be calculated using intraclass correlation statistics with statistical software.

    Measured: 60 min

Secondary outcomes (3)
  1. Inter-rater Agreement, 10-point Scale

    To validate a 10-point rating scale by investigating the inter-rater agreement of evaluations of the surgical workspace at different intra-abdominal pressures. The inter-rater agreement will be calculated using intraclass correlation statistics with statistical software.

    The 10-point rating scale was a discrete numerical scale with 1 being worst possible surgical workspace and 10 being best possible.

    Measured: 60 min

  2. Agreement Between the Two Rating Scales Will be Tested With Regression Analysis Using Spearman Correlation Coefficient

    The agreement between the two rating scales 5-point categorical and 10-point numerical will be tested with regression analysis using Spearman correlation coefficient

    Measured: 60 min

  3. Intra-rater Agreement of Both Rating Scales.

    To assess the intra-rater agreement of both rating scales, 10-point numerical and 5-point categorical scale.

    The intra-rater agreement will be calculated using intraclass correlation statistics.

    Measured: 60 min

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted9 Sep 2015 (estimated)
  2. Study startMar 2016
  3. Primary completionJul 2016
  4. Study completionAug 2016

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Health services research
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Triple blind
Who is masked
Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
16 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02545270
Sponsor's protocol ID
Vallap01
Status last verified
Mar 2019
First submitted
6 Aug 2015
Last updated
17 Jun 2019
Data monitoring committee
Yes

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Level of pneumoperitoneum 12-9-6 mmHg, Level of pneumoperitoneum 11-8-5 mmHg and Level of pneumoperitoneum 10-7-4 mmHg in people with Hernia, Inguinal, run by Herlev Hospital at 2 sites in Denmark.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Jun 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 2 sites in Denmark. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 17 Jun 2019). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Inter-rater Agreement, 5-point Scale (time frame: 60 min). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 Jun 2019.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in