58 Agreement in visual organ quality assessment: A comparative study between trainees and consultants
Abstract Introduction Optimising organ utilisation relies on accurate organ quality assessments. Though multiple factors influence decisions, subjective visual assessments of hepatic steatosis and renal perfusion remain the most reported reasons of non-utilisation of retrieved organs. Initial evaluations are typically conducted by trainee surgeons. This study assesses agreement of organ quality assessments between trainee and consultant transplant surgeons. Methods Surgeons were categorised as consultants (≥5 years experience) or trainees (<5 years experience). Nineteen surgeons (10 consultants, 9 trainees) from 8 centres assessed liver quality, and 17 surgeons (8 consultants, 9 trainees) from 8 centres evaluated kidney quality. Visual characteristics (Hepatic Steatosis – None/Mild/Moderate/Severe; Renal Perfusion – Good/Fair/Poor/Patchy) and overall organ quality (Good/Moderate/Poor) were scored. Inter-rater agreement on images reviewed by both trainees and consultants was determined. Results Photographs of 324 livers and 284 kidneys were assessed. Agreement between consultant and trainee surgeons on hepatic steatosis was poor (AC=0.36, 95%CI:0.31-0.41), while liver overall quality was moderate (AC=0.62, 95%CI:0.58-0.66). When disagreeing, trainees overestimated severity of steatosis, odds ratio OR=1.99 (95%CI:1.62-2.45), and overall quality, OR=1.47 (95%CI:1.14-1.89). Renal perfusion agreement was moderate (AC=0.55, 95%CI:0.49-0.61), with moderate to good agreement for overall quality (AC=0.64, 95%CI:0.59-0.69). Trainees again overestimated severity, OR=1.61 (95%CI:1.24-2.08) for perfusion quality and OR=1.50 (95%CI:1.16-2.18) for overall quality. Conclusions Trainees were more likely to overestimate severity during visual assessments. This underscores the importance of implementing decision aid tools, especially when retrievals are conducted by less experienced transplant surgeons, to optimise the use of donated organs and reduce unnecessary discards.
Authors
- Chris Callaghan (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3334-4152)
- Avinash Sewpaul (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2314-3365)
- Jeevan Prakash Gopal (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9637-1268)
- Fanourios Georgiades (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0440-2720)
- James Hunter (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4972-6879)
- Balaji Mahendran (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6252-9415)
- Christopher J.E. Watson (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0590-4901)
- Ali Ahmed Elmahmudi
- Aaron Ahearn (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4818-3312)
- John Asher (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8735-6453)
- Colin Wilson (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1515-8690)
- Joerg‐Matthias Pollok (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8771-4070)
- Brian Thomson
- B. M. Stephenson
- Samuel J Tingle (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5529-7815)
- Seiji Yamaguchi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2441-764X)
- Jeroen de Jonge (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1131-027X)
- Hassan Ugail (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3084-1797)
- Georgios Kourounis (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1051-078X)
- B. Dasari (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2375-1141)
- Emily Thompson (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7449-6294)
- Rodrigo Figueiredo
- Stuart F. Reynolds
- Mohamed Aly M. El Shafei El Zawahry
Institutions
- University of Southern California (US)
- Guy's Hospital (GB)
- University of Bradford (GB)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (GB)
- NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GB)
- The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
- Freeman Hospital (GB)
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (GB)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Addenbrooke's Hospital (GB)
- University College London (GB)
- University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Publication Details
- Journal
- British journal of surgery
- Published
- 2025-03-01
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf042.058
- Primary Topic
- Digital Imaging in Medicine
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00