ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Automated performance assessment in simulated laparoscopic crural repair.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCrural repair involves reconstructing the esophageal hiatus. Automated AI-based assessment of intracorporeal suturing could improve trainee performance through objective feedback. We evaluated an AI system designed to assess performance in simulated laparoscopic crural repair without manual annotations.
methodsIn this institutional review board-approved study, tool motion was tracked from 47 videos of 33 participants (15 novices, 18 experts) performing simulated crural repair. Each suture placement was segmented from needle grasp to final knot, and bilateral tool motion was analyzed. Kinematic features path length, root mean square (RMS) velocity, jerk, and bimanual dexterity were extracted. Noise was removed using a 24 Hz low-pass filter. Machine learning models (logistic regression, random forest, support vector classifier, XGBoost) were trained using tenfold cross validation. An ablation study identified the top-performing model, and group differences were evaluated with the Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsData from all participants were successfully analyzed. Logistic regression with min-max scaling achieved the best performance (74% accuracy, an F1 score of 0.76). Significant differences between novice and expert groups were found for bimanual dexterity (p = 0.01), right-hand tool RMS velocity (p = 0.02), left-hand tool RMS jerk (p = 0.001), and total path length (p < 0.001), supporting the relevance of selected features.
conclusionThe AI system reliably assessed skill level without manual annotation. This approach shows promise for broader application across laparoscopic procedures.
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.