Comparative analysis of laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgical training videos on WebSurg vs YouTube platforms: a quality evaluation

Abstract

Aims: Minimally invasive surgical techniques, particularly laparoscopic methods for inguinal hernia repair, have gained popularity due to their benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and faster recovery. This study aimed to compare the educational quality of laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgical training videos between YouTube and WebSurg platforms. Methods: Using the keyword “laparoscopic inguinal hernia” we selected and analyzed top 20 videos based on popularity on both platforms. The study examined video sources, duration, likes, views, upload year, coverage of the entire surgical procedure, and evaluation scores (Global Quality Scale-GQS, American Medical Association-JAMA scores, modified DISCERN score, LAP-VEGaS criteria). Results: YouTube predominantly featured private hospitals/organizations (30%) and physicians (45%), while WebSurg showcased academic institutions (75%). Notably, YouTube hosted mostly edited/abbreviated videos (95%), whereas WebSurg presented a balanced distribution of full-length (50%) and edited/abbreviated (50%) videos. While engagement metrics were comparable, WebSurg consistently achieved higher evaluation scores across various criteria, including modified DISCERN, GQS, JAMA, and LAP-VEGaS (p <0.001, p <.0.001, p=0.002 and p <0.001 respectively). Conclusion: This study is the first to compare WebSurg and YouTube videos in laparoscopic hernia surgery education, revealing that WebSurg provides higher-quality content, highlighting the importance of platform choice for advancing surgical training.

Keywords

• Laparoscopy
• inguinal hernia
• YouTube
• WebSurg

References

1. Kumar A, Kaistha S, Gangavatiker R. Non-fixation versus fixation of mesh in totally extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia: a comparative study. Indian J Surg. 2018;80(2):128-133.
2. Rapp AK, Healy MG, Charlton ME, et al. YouTube is the most frequently used educational video source for surgical preparation. J Surg Educ. 2016;73(6):1072-1076.
3. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, et al. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Inform J. 2015;21(3):173-194.
4. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, et al. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Inform J. 2015;21(3):173-194.
5. Yesilada M, Lewandowsky S. Systematic review: YouTube recommendations and problematic content. Internet Policy Rev. 2022;11(1):1652.
6. Mutter D, Vix M, Dallemange B, et al. WebSurg: an innovative educational Web site in minimally invasive surgery—principles and results. Surg Innov. 2011;18(1):8-14
7. Celentano V, Smart N, McGrath J, et al. LAP-VEGaS practice guidelines for reporting of educational videos in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2018;268(6):920-926.
8. Osman W, Mohamed F, Elhassan M, et al. Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):382.

9. Uprak TK, Ergenç M. Assessment of esophagectomy videos on YouTube: is peer review necessary for quality? J Surg Res. 2022;279:368-373.
10. Onder ME, Zengin O. YouTube as a source of information on gout: a quality analysis. Rheumatol Int. 2021;41(7):1321-1328.
11. Krakowiak M, Rak M, Krakowiak P, et al. YouTube as a source of information on carbon monoxide poisoning: a content-quality analysis. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2022;35(3): 285-295.
12. Pathak R, Poudel DR, Karmacharya P, et al. YouTube as a source of information on ebola virus disease. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7(7):306-309.
13. Erdem H, Sislik A. The reliability of bariatric surgery videos in YouTube platform. Obes Surg. 2018;28(3):712-716.
14. Nason GJ, Kelly P, Kelly ME, et al. YouTube as an educational tool regarding male urethral catheterization. Scand J Urol. 2015;49(2):189-192.
15. Basch CH, Zybert P, Reeves R, et al. What do popular YouTube videos say about vaccines? Child Care Health Dev. 2017;43(4):499-503.
16. Hayanga AJ, Kaiser HE. Medical information on YouTube®TM. JAMA. 2008;299(4):1424-1426.
17. Lee J, Kim MJ, Hur KY. The learning curve of the beginner surgeon with supervisor for laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal repair. J Minim Invasive Surg. 2015;18(1):127-132.
18. Lim JW, Lee JY, Lee SE, et al. The learning curve for laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal herniorrhaphy by moving average. J Korean Surg Soc. 2012;83(2):92-96.
19. Huynh D, Fadaee N, Gök H, Wright A, Towfigh S. Thou shalt not trust online videos for inguinal hernia repair techniques. Surgical Endoscopy. 2021;35(10):5724-5728.
20. Yigit B, Citgez B. Assessment of the Educational Quality, Accuracy, and Transparency of WebSurg Videos on Minimally Invasive Video-Assisted Parathyroidectomy. Cureus. 2021;13(10):e18942.
21. Ferhatoglu MF, Kartal A, Filiz Aİ, et al. Comparison of new era’s education platforms, YouTube® and WebSurg®, in sleeve gastrectomy. Obes Surg. 2019;29(11):3472-3477.
22. Kartal A, Kebudi A. Evaluation of the reliability, utility, and quality of information used in total extraperitoneal procedure for inguinal hernia repair videos shared on WebSurg. Cureus. 2019;11(9):e5566.