Microtools: A systematic review of validated assessment tools in microsurgery

Background: Microsurgery is a technically demanding aspect of surgery that is integral to a variety of sub-specialties. Microsurgery is required in high-risk cases where time is limited and pressure is high, so there is increasing demand for skills acquisition beforehand. The aim of this review was to analyse the available literature on validated microsurgical assessment tools. Methods: Covidence was used to screen papers for inclusion. Keywords included 'microsurgery', 'simulation', 'end-product assessment' and 'competence'. Inclusion criteria specified simulation models which demonstrate training and assessment of skill acquisition simultaneously. Tools which were used for training independently of technical assessment were excluded and so were tools which did not include a microvascular anastomosis. Each assessment tool was evaluated for validity, bias, complexity and fidelity and reliability using PRISMA and SWiM guidelines. Results: Thirteen distinct tools were validated for use in microsurgical assessment. These can be divided into overall assessment and end-product assessment. Ten tools assessed the 'journey' of the operation, and three tools were specifically end-product assessments. All tools achieved construct validity. Criterion validity was only assessed for the UWOMSA(1) and GRS.(2) Interrater reliability was demonstrated for each tool except the ISSLA(3) and SAMS.(4) Four of the tools addressed demonstrate predictive validity.(4-)(7) Conclusion: Thirteen assessment tools achieve variable validity for use in microsurgery. Interrater reliability is demonstrated for 11 of the 13 tools. The GRS and UWOMSA achieve intrarater reliability. The End Product Intimal Assessment tool and the Imperial College of Surgical Assessment device were valid tools for objective assessment of microsurgical skill. (C) 2022 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.