A Study of Psychomotor Skills in Minimally Invasive Surgery: What Differentiates Expert and Nonexpert Performance

Overview

Journal Surg Endosc

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gastroenterology
General Surgery
Radiology

Date 2012 Oct 12

PMID 23052505

Citations 48

Authors

Erlend Fagertun Hofstad

Cecilie Vapenstad

Magdalena Karolina Chmarra

Thomas Lango

Esther Kuhry

Ronald Marvik

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: A high level of psychomotor skills is required to perform minimally invasive surgery (MIS) safely. To assure high quality of skills, it is important to be able to measure and assess these skills. For that, it is necessary to determine aspects that indicate the difference between performances at various levels of proficiency. Measurement and assessment of skills in MIS are best done in an automatic and objective way. The goal of this study was to investigate a set of nine motion-related metrics for their relevance to assess psychomotor skills in MIS during the performance of a labyrinth task.

Methods: Thirty-two surgeons and medical students were divided into three groups according to their level of experience in MIS; experts (>500 MIS procedures), intermediates (31-500 MIS), and novices (no experience in MIS). The participants performed the labyrinth task in the D-box Basic simulator (D-Box Medical, Lier, Norway). The task required bimanual maneuvering and threading a needle through a labyrinth of 10 holes. Nine motion-related metrics were used to assess the MIS skills of each participant.

Results: Experts (n = 7) and intermediates (n = 14) performed significantly better than the novices (n = 11) in terms of time and parameters measuring the amount of instrument movement. The experts had significantly better bimanual dexterity, which indicated that they made more simultaneous movements of the two instruments compared to the intermediates and novices. The experts also performed the task with a shorter instrument path length with the nondominant hand than the intermediates.

Conclusions: The surgeon's performance in MIS can be distinguished from a novice by metrics such as time and path length. An experienced surgeon in MIS can be differentiated from a less experienced one by the higher ability to control the instrument in the nondominant hand and the higher degree of simultaneous (coordinated) movements of the two instruments.

Citing Articles

Artificial intelligence assessment of tissue-dissection efficiency in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Nakajima K, Takenaka S, Kitaguchi D, Tanaka A, Ryu K, Takeshita N Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2025; 410(1):80.

PMID: 39984705 PMC: 11845557. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-025-03641-8.

Automated surgical skill assessment in colorectal surgery using a deep learning-based surgical phase recognition model.

Nakajima K, Kitaguchi D, Takenaka S, Tanaka A, Ryu K, Takeshita N Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(11):6347-6355.

PMID: 39214877 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11208-9.

Development of a human machine interface for robotically assisted surgery optimized for laparoscopic workflows.

Wegener L, Wilhelm D, Berlet M, Fuchtmann J Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2024; 19(12):2301-2309.

PMID: 39126562 PMC: 11607037. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-024-03239-3.

Objective and Automated Quantification of Instrument Handling for Open Surgical Suturing Skill Assessment: A Simulation-Based Study.

Singh S, Shayan A, Gao J, Bible J, Groff R, Singapogu R IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol. 2024; 5:485-493.

PMID: 39050974 PMC: 11268937. DOI: 10.1109/OJEMB.2024.3402393.

Stress responses in surgical trainees during simulation-based training courses in laparoscopy.

Tjonnas M, Muller S, Vapenstad C, Tjonnas J, Ose S, Das A BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1):407.

PMID: 38610013 PMC: 11010405. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-05393-3.

References

Judkins T, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N . Objective evaluation of expert and novice performance during robotic surgical training tasks. Surg Endosc. 2008; 23(3):590-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-008-9933-9. View

Schout B, Hendrikx A, Scheele F, Bemelmans B, Scherpbier A . Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future. Surg Endosc. 2009; 24(3):536-46. PMC: 2821618. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0634-9. View

Gurusamy K, Aggarwal R, Palanivelu L, Davidson B . Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; (1):CD006575. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006575.pub2. View

Pellen M, Horgan L, Barton J, Attwood S . Construct validity of the ProMIS laparoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc. 2008; 23(1):130-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-008-0066-y. View

Davis D, Mazmanian P, Fordis M, Harrison R, Thorpe K, Perrier L . Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006; 296(9):1094-102. DOI: 10.1001/jama.296.9.1094. View

Woodrum D, Andreatta P, Yellamanchilli R, Feryus L, Gauger P, Minter R . Construct validity of the LapSim laparoscopic surgical simulator. Am J Surg. 2006; 191(1):28-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.10.018. View

Vassiliou M, Feldman L, Andrew C, Bergman S, Leffondre K, Stanbridge D . A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg. 2005; 190(1):107-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.04.004. View

Oropesa I, Sanchez-Gonzalez P, Lamata P, Chmarra M, Pagador J, Sanchez-Margallo J . Methods and tools for objective assessment of psychomotor skills in laparoscopic surgery. J Surg Res. 2011; 171(1):e81-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2011.06.034. View

Carter F, Schijven M, Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Francis N, Hanna G . Consensus guidelines for validation of virtual reality surgical simulators. Surg Endosc. 2005; 19(12):1523-32. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-005-0384-2. View

10.

Maithel S, Villegas L, Stylopoulos N, Dawson S, Jones D . Simulated laparoscopy using a head-mounted display vs traditional video monitor: an assessment of performance and muscle fatigue. Surg Endosc. 2004; 19(3):406-11. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-004-8177-6. View

11.

Gallagher A, Ritter E, Satava R . Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training. Surg Endosc. 2003; 17(10):1525-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-003-0035-4. View

12.

Subramonian K, DeSylva S, Bishai P, Thompson P, Muir G . Acquiring surgical skills: a comparative study of open versus laparoscopic surgery. Eur Urol. 2004; 45(3):346-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2003.09.021. View

13.

Chmarra M, Kolkman W, Jansen F, Grimbergen C, Dankelman J . The influence of experience and camera holding on laparoscopic instrument movements measured with the TrEndo tracking system. Surg Endosc. 2007; 21(11):2069-75. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-007-9298-5. View

14.

Basdogan C, Sedef M, Harders M, Wesarg S . VR-based simulators for training in minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2007; 27(2):54-66. DOI: 10.1109/mcg.2007.51. View

15.

Feldman L, Sherman V, Fried G . Using simulators to assess laparoscopic competence: ready for widespread use?. Surgery. 2003; 135(1):28-42. DOI: 10.1016/s0039-6060(03)00155-7. View

16.

Satava R . Historical review of surgical simulation--a personal perspective. World J Surg. 2007; 32(2):141-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-007-9374-y. View

17.

Narazaki K, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N . Robotic surgery training and performance: identifying objective variables for quantifying the extent of proficiency. Surg Endosc. 2005; 20(1):96-103. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-005-3011-3. View

18.

Thijssen A, Schijven M . Contemporary virtual reality laparoscopy simulators: quicksand or solid grounds for assessing surgical trainees?. Am J Surg. 2010; 199(4):529-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.04.015. View