Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36550203›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2022

Surgical gestures as a method to quantify surgical performance and predict patient outcomes.

Runzhuo Ma, Ashwin Ramaswamy, Jiashu Xu, Loc Trinh, Dani Kiyasseh, Timothy N Chu, Elyssa Y Wong, Ryan S Lee, Ivan Rodriguez, Gina DeMeo and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

21 authors.

Runzhuo MaCenter for Robotic Simulation & Education, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ashwin RamaswamyDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Jiashu XuComputer Science Department, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4093-2315
Loc TrinhComputer Science Department, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Dani KiyassehDepartment of Computing & Mathematical Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Timothy N ChuCenter for Robotic Simulation & Education, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Elyssa Y WongCenter for Robotic Simulation & Education, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ryan S LeeCenter for Robotic Simulation & Education, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ivan RodriguezCenter for Robotic Simulation & Education, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Gina DeMeoDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Aditya DesaiCenter for Robotic Simulation & Education, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Maxwell X OtiatoCenter for Robotic Simulation & Education, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6979-6316
Sidney I RobertsCenter for Robotic Simulation & Education, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jessica H NguyenCenter for Robotic Simulation & Education, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jasper LacaCenter for Robotic Simulation & Education, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Yan LiuComputer Science Department, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Katarina UrbanovaDepartment of Urology and Urologic Oncology, St. Antonius-Hospital, Gronau, Germany.
Christian WagnerDepartment of Urology and Urologic Oncology, St. Antonius-Hospital, Gronau, Germany.
Animashree AnandkumarDepartment of Computing & Mathematical Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Jim C HuDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Andrew J HungCenter for Robotic Simulation & Education, Catherine & Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. andrew.hung@med.usc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7201-6736

Funding

Preserving Erectile Function by Quantifying the Nerve-Sparing step of the Robotic ProstatectomyR01CA273031 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Jim Hu, Andrew Hung · 2022 to 2026
$3.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA273031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How well a surgery is performed impacts a patient's outcomes; however, objective quantification of performance remains an unsolved challenge. Deconstructing a procedure into discrete instrument-tissue "gestures" is a emerging way to understand surgery. To establish this paradigm in a procedure where performance is the most important factor for patient outcomes, we identify 34,323 individual gestures performed in 80 nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomies from two international medical centers. Gestures are classified into nine distinct dissection gestures (e.g., hot cut) and four supporting gestures (e.g., retraction). Our primary outcome is to identify factors impacting a patient's 1-year erectile function (EF) recovery after radical prostatectomy. We find that less use of hot cut and more use of peel/push are statistically associated with better chance of 1-year EF recovery. Our results also show interactions between surgeon experience and gesture types-similar gesture selection resulted in different EF recovery rates dependent on surgeon experience. To further validate this framework, two teams independently constructe distinct machine learning models using gesture sequences vs. traditional clinical features to predict 1-year EF. In both models, gesture sequences are able to better predict 1-year EF (Team 1: AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.73-0.81; Team 2: AUC 0.68, 95% CI 0.66-0.70) than traditional clinical features (Team 1: AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.73; Team 2: AUC 0.65, 95% CI 0.62-0.68). Our results suggest that gestures provide a granular method to objectively indicate surgical performance and outcomes. Application of this methodology to other surgeries may lead to discoveries on methods to improve surgery.

Identifiers

PMID36550203
PMCPMC9780308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.