ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2022
Scoring metrics for assessing skills in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: performance comparison study of novice and expert surgeons.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedic Education Across the Career Continuum: Moving from Benchmark Performance to Continuing Professional Development.Journal of CME · 2026Review
- Use of artificial intelligence in the analysis of digital videos of invasive surgical procedures: scoping review.BJS open · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
- Can engineers represent surgeons in usability studies? Comparison of results from evaluating augmented reality guidance for laparoscopic surgery.Computers & graphics · 2024Article
- Validity Evidence for Procedure-specific Competence Assessment Tools in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe aim to develop quantitative performance metrics and a deep learning model to objectively assess surgery skills between the novice and the expert surgeons for arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery. These proposed metrics can be used to give the surgeon an objective and a quantitative self-assessment platform.
methodsTen shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff surgeries were performed by two novices, and fourteen were performed by two expert surgeons. These surgeries were statistically analyzed. Two existing evaluation systems: Basic Arthroscopic Knee Skill Scoring System (BAKSSS) and the Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET), were used to validate our proposed metrics. In addition, a deep learning-based model called Automated Arthroscopic Video Evaluation Tool (AAVET) was developed toward automating quantitative assessments.
resultsThe results revealed that novice surgeons used surgical tools approximately 10% less effectively and identified and stopped bleeding less swiftly. Our results showed a notable difference in the performance score between the experts and novices, and our metrics successfully identified these at the task level. Moreover, the F1-scores of each class are found as 78%, 87%, and 77% for classifying cases with no-tool, electrocautery, and shaver tool, respectively.
conclusionWe have constructed quantitative metrics that identified differences in the performances of expert and novice surgeons. Our ultimate goal is to validate metrics further and incorporate these into our virtual rotator cuff surgery simulator (ViRCAST), which has been under development. The initial results from AAVET show that the capability of the toolbox can be extended to create a fully automated performance evaluation platform.
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.