Skip to main content

Table 5 Factors associated with overall video quality based on senior surgeon assessment

From: Educational value of surgical videos on YouTube: quality assessment of laparoscopic appendectomy videos by senior surgeons vs. novice trainees

  Moderate/good quality videos (n = 13) Poor quality videos (n = 12) p value
Binary logistic regression
Odds ratio
Number of visualizations [median(range)] 35,362 (9091–4,183,318) 14,228 (6500–74,728) 0.148  
Number of days online [median(range)] 1672 (574–2637) 2025.5 (395–2767) 0.552  
Length (min) [median(range)] 6.45 (3.33–24.14) 5.14 (1.34–27.30) 0.494  
Number of comments
[median(range)]
27 (0–457) 3 (1–30) 0.074  
Number of likes
[median(range)]
124 (15–1941) 26.5 (9–107) 0.019 1.029 (1.00–1.05)
Number of dislikes [median(range)] 10 (0–181) 5 (0–16) 0.170  
CVS score ≥ 5 [n (%)]* 10 (76.9) 5 (41.7) 0.111  
GOALS score ≥ 20 [n (%)]* 8 (61.5) 6 (50) 0.695  
Utility score [mean(SD)] 2.51 (0.68) 1.27 (0.58) 0.006 2.50 (2.35–17.95)
LAP-VEGaS conformity (%)[mean(SD)] 12.89 (4.95) 6.76 (2.44) 0.014 1.15 (1.08–2.11)
Presence of audio/written commentary 10 (76.9) 3 (25) 0.014 3 (1.59–6.5)
Description of preoperative data [n (%)] 5 (38.5) 0 0.999  
Image quality    0.364  
• Good 6(46.2) 3 (25)  
• Poor 3(32.1) 6 (50)  
• High definition 4(38.8) 3 (25)  
  1. CVS critical view of safety, GOALS Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills, LAP-VEGaS laparoscopic surgery video educational guidelines
  2. *Calculated on the mean of the three senior surgeons’ assessment