ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024
An objective skill assessment framework for microsurgical anastomosis based on ALI scores.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. 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.
- Microvascular errors of technique: a systematic review.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating force and motion in posterior vitreous detachment manoeuvres using a robotic data acquisition system in cadaveric human eyes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Robot-Assisted Microsurgery Has a Steeper Learning Curve in Microsurgical Novices.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of a 4-day intensive course for neurosurgeons in error reduction in microvascular anastomoses.Brain & spine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe current assessment and standardization of microsurgical skills are subjective, posing challenges in reliable skill evaluation. We aim to address these limitations by developing a quantitative and objective framework for accurately assessing and enhancing microsurgical anastomosis skills among surgical trainees. We hypothesize that this framework can differentiate the proficiency levels of microsurgeons, aligning with subjective assessments based on the ALI score.
methodsWe select relevant performance metrics from the literature on laparoscopic skill assessment and human motor control studies, focusing on time, instrument kinematics, and tactile information. This information is measured and estimated by a set of sensors, including cameras, a motion capture system, and tactile sensors. The recorded data is analyzed offline using our proposed evaluation framework. Our study involves 12 participants of different ages ([Formula: see text] years) and genders (nine males and three females), including six novice and six intermediate subjects, who perform surgical anastomosis procedures on a chicken leg model.
resultsWe show that the proposed set of objective and quantitative metrics to assess skill proficiency aligns with subjective evaluations, particularly the ALI score method, and can effectively differentiate novices from more proficient microsurgeons. Furthermore, we find statistically significant disparities, where microsurgeons with intermediate level of skill proficiency surpassed novices in both task speed, reduced idle time, and smoother, briefer hand displacements.
conclusionThe framework enables accurate skill assessment and provides objective feedback for improving microsurgical anastomosis skills among surgical trainees. By overcoming the subjectivity and limitations of current assessment methods, our approach contributes to the advancement of surgical education and the development of aspiring microsurgeons. Furthermore, our framework emerges to precisely distinguish and classify proficiency levels (novice and intermediate) exhibited by microsurgeons.
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.