Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36192656›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

Artificial intelligence in laparoscopic simulation: a promising future for large-scale automated evaluations.

Francisca Belmar, María Inés Gaete, Gabriel Escalona, Martín Carnier, Valentina Durán, Ignacio Villagrán, Domenech Asbun, Matías Cortés, Andrés Neyem, Fernando Crovari and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. The silver lining of the pandemic in surgical education: virtual surgical education and recommendations for best practices.Global surgical education : journal of the Association for Surgical Education · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
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

12 authors.

Francisca BelmarExperimental Surgery and Simulation Center, Department of Digestive Surgery, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
María Inés GaeteExperimental Surgery and Simulation Center, Department of Digestive Surgery, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Gabriel EscalonaExperimental Surgery and Simulation Center, Department of Digestive Surgery, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Martín CarnierExperimental Surgery and Simulation Center, Department of Digestive Surgery, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Valentina DuránExperimental Surgery and Simulation Center, Department of Digestive Surgery, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Ignacio VillagránExperimental Surgery and Simulation Center, Department of Digestive Surgery, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Domenech AsbunHepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, USA.
Matías CortésExperimental Surgery and Simulation Center, Department of Digestive Surgery, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Andrés NeyemDepartment of Computer Science, Engineering Faculty, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Fernando CrovariExperimental Surgery and Simulation Center, Department of Digestive Surgery, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Adnan AlseidiDepartment of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Julián VarasExperimental Surgery and Simulation Center, Department of Digestive Surgery, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. jevaras@uc.cl.ORCID 0000-0002-5828-9623

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA limitation to expanding laparoscopic simulation training programs is the scarcity of expert evaluators. In 2019, a new digital platform for remote and asynchronous laparoscopic simulation training was validated. Through this platform, 369 trainees have been trained in 14 institutions across Latin America, collecting 6729 videos of laparoscopic training exercises. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) has recently emerged in surgical simulation, showing usefulness in training assessment, virtual reality scenarios, and laparoscopic virtual reality simulation. An AI algorithm to assess basic laparoscopic simulation training exercises was developed. This study aimed to analyze the agreement between this AI algorithm and expert evaluators in assessing basic laparoscopic-simulated training exercises.

methodsThe AI algorithm was trained using 400-bean drop (BD) and 480-peg transfer (PT) videos and tested using 64-BD and 43-PT randomly selected videos, not previously used to train the algorithm. The agreement between AI and expert evaluators from the digital platform (EE) was then analyzed. The exercises being assessed involve using laparoscopic graspers to move objects across an acrylic board without dropping any objects in a determined time (BD < 24 s, PT < 55 s). The AI algorithm can detect object movement, identify if objects have fallen, track grasper clamps location, and measure exercise time. Cohen's Kappa test was used to evaluate the agreement between AI assessments and those performed by EE, using a pass/fail nomenclature based on the time to complete the exercise.

resultsAfter the algorithm was trained, 79.69% and 93.02% agreement were observed in BD and PT, respectively. The Kappa coefficients test observed for BD and PT were 0.59 (moderate agreement) and 0.86 (almost perfect agreement), respectively.

conclusionThis first approach of AI use in basic laparoscopic skills simulated training assessment shows promising results, providing a preliminary framework to expand the use of AI to other basic laparoscopic skills exercises.

Indexed as

LaparoscopySimulation TrainingVirtual RealityAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceClinical CompetenceComputer SimulationHumansArtificial intelligenceLaparoscopySurgical simulation

Identifiers

PMID36192656
PMCPMC9529161

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.