ArticleJournal of medical systems2021
Development of a 3D Motion Tracking System for the Analysis of Skills in Microsurgery.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Artificial intelligence in microsurgery and supermicrosurgery training within plastic surgery: A systematic review.JPRAS open · 2025Review
- Smartwatch-based wrist tremor assessment in neurosurgical simulator training.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Decoding the Impact of AI on Microsurgery: Systematic Review and Classification of Six Subdomains for Future Development.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Objective psychomotor laparoscopic skills evaluation using a low-cost wearable device based on accelerometry: construct and concurrent validity study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Microsurgical Operating Room (Review).Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2023Review
- Editorial Perspective: Robot-Assisted Evaluation of Robotic Surgical Skills.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microsurgical skills of trainee surgeons have been subjectively evaluated due to the lack of technological tools. The objective of this investigation is to present the construct validity of the mitracks3D, which is a system designed to help in the objective evaluation of microsurgery trainees. To achieve this, a stereoscopic vision system records the 3D motion of two tweezers manipulated by surgeons during microsurgery training. Using motion analysis parameters (MAPs), quantitative information about their microsurgical skills and performance is obtained. For validation, 14 participants were enrolled and divided into two groups: expert microsurgeons (3 female, 2 male) and trainee surgeons (4 female, 5 male). The 3D motion tracking was acquired while the surgeons practiced with two training models: transferring objects and suture. Twelve MAPs were used to objective assessment the skill levels of each participant. Subsequent, statistical analysis was computed to compare the scores of both groups. Validation results showed statistically significant differences in 8 of the 12 MAPs and in 10 of the 12 MAPs using the transferring and the suturing models, respectively. The capability of mitracks3D to differentiate the performance of microsurgeons by analyzing their movements was shown. The mitracks3D system was successfully validated. With this system was possible to differentiate the psychomotor microsurgical skills between the two groups of surgeons. The mitracks3D system is a suitable device for the evaluation of microsurgical skills in a variety of surgical specialties that require it during the training of their residents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34731325What 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.