ArticlePloS one2022
Automatic assessment of laparoscopic surgical skill competence based on motion metrics.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Experienced Manipulation Characteristics in Robotic Surgery Using Log Data From the Hinotori Surgical System.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Eye-hand coordination during robotic prostate cancer surgery - how surgical vision reflects on instrument kinematics and vice versa.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Objective Assessment of Surgical Skill Using Artificial Intelligence Hand Tracking in Cardiothoracic Training: A Feasibility Study.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Automated performance assessment in simulated laparoscopic crural repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in microsurgery and supermicrosurgery training within plastic surgery: A systematic review.JPRAS open · 2025Review
- External validation of a motion capture-based surgical skill assessment system in laparoscopic simulation training environments.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Transfer Learning Efficacy for Surgical Suture Quality Classification on Limited Datasets.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Exploring the Role of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Driven Training in Laparoscopic Suturing: A Systematic Review of Skills Mastery, Retention, and Clinical Performance in Surgical Education.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence integration in surgery through hand and instrument tracking: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- A Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Skills Between Novices and Experts: How to Steepen the Learning Curve.Cureus · 2024Article
- Surgical skill analysis focused on tissue traction in laparoscopic wet lab training.Surgery open science · 2024Article
- Surgeon Upper Extremity Kinematics During Error and Error-Free Retropubic Trocar Passage.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- A surgical instrument motion measurement system for skill evaluation in practical laparoscopic surgery training.PloS one · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to characterize the motion features of surgical devices associated with laparoscopic surgical competency and build an automatic skill-credential system in porcine cadaver organ simulation training. Participants performed tissue dissection around the aorta, dividing vascular pedicles after applying Hem-o-lok (tissue dissection task) and parenchymal closure of the kidney (suturing task). Movements of surgical devices were tracked by a motion capture (Mocap) system, and Mocap-metrics were compared according to the level of surgical experience (experts: ≥50 laparoscopic surgeries, intermediates: 10-49, novices: 0-9), using the Kruskal-Wallis test and principal component analysis (PCA). Three machine-learning algorithms: support vector machine (SVM), PCA-SVM, and gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), were utilized for discrimination of the surgical experience level. The accuracy of each model was evaluated by nested and repeated k-fold cross-validation. A total of 32 experts, 18 intermediates, and 20 novices participated in the present study. PCA revealed that efficiency-related metrics (e.g., path length) significantly contributed to PC 1 in both tasks. Regarding PC 2, speed-related metrics (e.g., velocity, acceleration, jerk) of right-hand devices largely contributed to the tissue dissection task, while those of left-hand devices did in the suturing task. Regarding the three-group discrimination, in the tissue dissection task, the GBDT method was superior to the other methods (median accuracy: 68.6%). In the suturing task, SVM and PCA-SVM methods were superior to the GBDT method (57.4 and 58.4%, respectively). Regarding the two-group discrimination (experts vs. intermediates/novices), the GBDT method resulted in a median accuracy of 72.9% in the tissue dissection task, and, in the suturing task, the PCA-SVM method resulted in a median accuracy of 69.2%. Overall, the mocap-based credential system using machine-learning classifiers provides a correct judgment rate of around 70% (two-group discrimination). Together with motion analysis and wet-lab training, simulation training could be a practical method for objectively assessing the surgical competence of trainees.
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.