ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Automatic assessment of performance in the FLS trainer using computer vision.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Technical skill assessment in minimally invasive surgery using artificial intelligence: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- A Novel Competency-Based Simulation Model for Thoracoscopic Lung Resection.The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon · 2026Trial
- Artificial intelligence for automatic FLS credentialing: highlighting and addressing current limitations.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence classifies surgical technical skills in simulated laparoscopy: a pilot study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) box trainer is a well-accepted method for training and evaluating laparoscopic skills. It mandates an observer that will measure and evaluate the trainee's performance. Measuring performance in the Peg Transfer task includes time and penalty for dropping pegs. This study aimed to assess whether computer vision (CV) may be used to automatically measure performance in the FLS box trainer.
methodsFour groups of metrics were defined and measured automatically using CV. Validity was assessed by dividing participants to 3 groups of experience levels. Twenty-seven participants were recorded performing the Peg Transfer task 2-4 times, amounting to 72 videos. Frames were sampled from the videos and labeled to create an image dataset. Using these images, we trained a deep neural network (YOLOv4) to detect the different objects in the video. We developed an evaluation system that tracks the transfer of the triangles and produces a feedback report with the metrics being the main criteria. The metric groups were Time, Grasper Movement Speed, Path Efficiency, and Grasper Coordination. The performance was compared based on their last video (3 participants were excluded due to technical issues).
resultsThe ANOVA tests show that for all metrics except one, the variance in performance can be explained by the experience level of participants. Senior surgeons and residents significantly outperform students and interns on almost every metric. Senior surgeons usually outperform residents, but the gap is not always significant.
conclusionThe statistical analysis shows that the metrics can differentiate between the experts and novices performing the task in several aspects. Thus, they may provide a more detailed performance analysis than is currently used. Moreover, these metrics calculation is automatic and relies solely on the video camera of the FLS trainer. As a result, they allow independent training and assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37253868What 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.