ArticleBMC surgery2021
A haptic laparoscopic trainer based on affine velocity analysis: engineering and preliminary results.
Article in BMC surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a general agreement upon the importance of acquiring laparoscopic skills outside the operation room through simulation-based training. However, high-fidelity simulators are cost-prohibitive and elicit a high cognitive load, while low-fidelity simulators lack effective feedback. This paper describes a low-fidelity simulator bridging the existing gaps with affine velocity as a new assessment variable. Primary validation results are also presented.
methodsPsycho-motor skills and engineering key features have been considered e.g. haptic feedback and complementary assessment variables. Seventy-seven participants tested the simulator (17 expert surgeons, 12 intermediates, 28 inexperienced interns, and 20 novices). The content validity was tested with a 10-point Likert scale and the discriminative power by comparing the four groups' performance over two sessions.
resultsParticipants rated the simulator positively, from 7.25 to 7.72 out of 10 (mean, 7.57). Experts and intermediates performed faster with fewer errors (collisions) than inexperienced interns and novices. The affine velocity brought additional differentiations, especially between interns and novices.
conclusionThis affordable haptic simulator makes it possible to learn and train laparoscopic techniques. Self-assessment of basic skills was easily performed with slight additional cost compared to low-fidelity simulators. It could be a good trade-off among the products currently used for surgeons' training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.