ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
External validation of a motion capture-based surgical skill assessment system in laparoscopic simulation training environments.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying ergonomic challenges for urologists operating flexible ureteroscopes through artificial intelligence-based posture estimation.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo externally validate our surgical skill assessment system, which provides comprehensive real-time feedback based on motion capture (Mocap) metrics of laparoscopic instruments in simulation training environments.
methodsParticipants conducted periaortic tissue dissection (Dissection Task) and parenchymal closure of the kidney (Suturing Task) using porcine cadaveric organs. Surgical instrument movements were measured by the MoCap system, and all training sessions were video-recorded. Utilizing our previously developed machine-learning (ML) algorithm, participants received quantitative feedback based on their motion features immediately after the training, including three-tier classification results, which meant their skill levels being consistent with those with
resultsA total of 38 urologists, 4 junior residents, and 10 medical students voluntarily participated in the current training. Several participants repeatedly performed the training, and so 107 datasets were included in the present analysis. Validation analyses demonstrated overall classification accuracies of 67.3 and 56.9% for Dissection Task and Suturing Task, respectively, when excluding the subsequent data of repeaters. In terms of GOALS score prediction, the correlation coefficient and MAE were 0.86 and 2.51
conclusionsOur real-time feedback system was viewed favorably by the participants, and the ML algorithm was a reliable method, especially the predicted GOALS score. This system could facilitate objective performance assessment, enhance simulation-based training efficacy, and potentially accelerate surgical skill acquisition.
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.