Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27604368›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017

Development and validation of a sensor- and expert model-based training system for laparoscopic surgery: the iSurgeon.

Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Jonathan D Hendrie, Mona W Schmidt, Carly R Garrow, Thomas Bruckner, Tanja Proctor, Sai Paul, Davud Adigüzel, Sebastian Bodenstedt, Andreas Erben and 5 more

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A Review of Recent Advancements in Sensor-Integrated Medical Tools.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Karl-Friedrich KowalewskiDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jonathan D HendrieDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Mona W SchmidtDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Carly R GarrowDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Thomas BrucknerDepartment of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Tanja ProctorDepartment of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sai PaulDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Davud AdigüzelInstitute for Anthropomatics and Robotics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Adenauerring 2, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Sebastian BodenstedtInstitute for Anthropomatics and Robotics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Adenauerring 2, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Andreas ErbenPrivate Person, Hanauer Landstraße 204, 60314, Frankfurt, Germany.
Hannes KenngottDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Young ErbenSection of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Stefanie SpeidelInstitute for Anthropomatics and Robotics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Adenauerring 2, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Beat P Müller-StichDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Felix NickelDepartment of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. felix.nickel@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Heidelberg University · DEKarlsruhe Institute of Technology · DEKlinikum Hanau · DEYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTraining and assessment outside of the operating room is crucial for minimally invasive surgery due to steep learning curves. Thus, we have developed and validated the sensor- and expert model-based laparoscopic training system, the iSurgeon. MATERIALS: Participants of different experience levels (novice, intermediate, expert) performed four standardized laparoscopic knots. Instruments and surgeons' joint motions were tracked with an NDI Polaris camera and Microsoft Kinect v1. With frame-by-frame image analysis, the key steps of suturing and knot tying were identified and registered with motion data. Construct validity, concurrent validity, and test-retest reliability were analyzed. The Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) was used as the gold standard for concurrent validity.

resultsThe system showed construct validity by discrimination between experience levels by parameters such as time (novice = 442.9 ± 238.5 s; intermediate = 190.1 ± 50.3 s; expert = 115.1 ± 29.1 s; p < 0.001), total path length (novice = 18,817 ± 10318 mm; intermediate = 9995 ± 3286 mm; expert = 7265 ± 2232 mm; p < 0.001), average speed (novice = 42.9 ± 8.3 mm/s; intermediate = 52.7 ± 11.2 mm/s; expert = 63.6 ± 12.9 mm/s; p < 0.001), angular path (novice = 20,573 ± 12,611°; intermediate = 8652 ± 2692°; expert = 5654 ± 1746°; p < 0.001), number of movements (novice = 2197 ± 1405; intermediate = 987 ± 367; expert = 743 ± 238; p < 0.001), number of movements per second (novice = 5.0 ± 1.4; intermediate = 5.2 ± 1.5; expert = 6.6 ± 1.6; p = 0.025), and joint angle range (for different axes and joints all p < 0.001). Concurrent validity of OSATS and iSurgeon parameters was established. Test-retest reliability was given for 7 out of 8 parameters. The key steps "wrapping the thread around the instrument" and "needle positioning" were most difficult to learn.

conclusionValidity and reliability of the self-developed sensor-and expert model-based laparoscopic training system "iSurgeon" were established. Using multiple parameters proved more reliable than single metric parameters. Wrapping of the needle around the thread and needle positioning were identified as difficult key steps for laparoscopic suturing and knot tying. The iSurgeon could generate automated real-time feedback based on expert models which may result in shorter learning curves for laparoscopic tasks. Our next steps will be the implementation and evaluation of full procedural training in an experimental model.

Indexed as

Simulation TrainingClinical CompetenceFeedbackHumansLaparoscopyReproducibility of ResultsSuture TechniquesAssessmentComputer-assisted surgeryEducationKinectLaparoscopic suturing and knot tyingMinimally invasive surgery

Identifiers

PMID27604368
OpenAlexW2507625300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.