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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hallam DM, Anwar MA, Khan IM, Memon MA, Steele K, Lidor A (2008) Access to the abdomen. In: Scott-Conner CEH (ed) The SAGES manual of strategic decision making. Springer, New York, pp 1–9
Feldman LS, Sherman V, Fried GM (2004) Using simulators to assess laparoscopic competence: ready for widespread use? Surgery 135(1):28–42
Subramonian K, DeSylva S, Bishai P, Thompson P, Muir G (2004) Acquiring surgical skills: a comparative study of open versus laparoscopic surgery. Eur Urol 45(3):346–351
Gurusamy KS, Aggarwal R, Palanivelu L, Davidson BR (2009) Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD006575
Basdogan C, Sedef M, Harders M, Wesarg S (2007) VR-based simulators for training in minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 27(2):54–66
Carter FJ, Schijven MP, Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Francis NK, Hanna GB, Jakimowicz JJ (2005) Consensus guidelines for validation of virtual reality surgical simulators. Surg Endosc 19(12):1523–1532
Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Satava RM (2003) Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training. Surg Endosc 17(10):1525–1529
Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, Bergman S, Leffondre K, Stanbridge D, Fried GM (2005) A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 190(1):107–113
Oropesa I, Sanchez-Gonzalez P, Lamata P, Chmarra MK, Pagador JB, Sanchez-Margallo JA, Sanchez-Margallo FM, Gomez EJ (2011) Methods and tools for objective assessment of psychomotor skills in laparoscopic surgery. J Surg Res 171(1):e81–e95
Narazaki K, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2006) Robotic surgery training and performance: identifying objective variables for quantifying the extent of proficiency. Surg Endosc 20(1):96–103
Judkins TN, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2009) Objective evaluation of expert and novice performance during robotic surgical training tasks. Surg Endosc 23(3):590–597
Satava RM (2008) Historical review of surgical simulation—a personal perspective. World J Surg 32(2):141–148
Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L (2006) Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA 296(9):1094–1102
Schout BM, Hendrikx AJ, Scheele F, Bemelmans BL, Scherpbier AJ (2010) Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future. Surg Endosc 24(3):536–546
Chmarra KM, Klein S, de Winter F, Jansen JC, Dankelman FW et al (2010) Objective classification of residents based on their psychomotor laparoscopic skills. Volume 24. Springer, Heidelberg
Pellen MG, Horgan LF, Barton JR, Attwood SE (2009) Construct validity of the ProMIS laparoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 23(1):130–139
Woodrum DT, Andreatta PB, Yellamanchilli RK, Feryus L, Gauger PG, Minter RM (2006) Construct validity of the LapSim laparoscopic surgical simulator. Am J Surg 191(1):28–32
Thijssen AS, Schijven MP (2010) Contemporary virtual reality laparoscopy simulators: quicksand or solid grounds for assessing surgical trainees? Am J Surg 199(4):529–541
Chmarra MK, Kolkman W, Jansen FW, Grimbergen CA, Dankelman J (2007) The influence of experience and camera holding on laparoscopic instrument movements measured with the TrEndo tracking system. Surg Endosc 21(11):2069–2075
Maithel SK, Villegas L, Stylopoulos N, Dawson S, Jones DB (2005) Simulated laparoscopy using a head-mounted display vs traditional video monitor: an assessment of performance and muscle fatigue. Surg Endosc 19(3):406–411
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the surgeons, residents, medical students, and interns for participating in this study.
Disclosures
Erlend F. Hofstad, Cecilie Våpenstad, Magdalena K. Chmarra, Thomas Langø, Esther Kuhry, and Ronald Mårvik have no conflicts of interests or financial ties to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hofstad, E.F., Våpenstad, C., Chmarra, M.K. et al. A study of psychomotor skills in minimally invasive surgery: what differentiates expert and nonexpert performance. Surg Endosc 27, 854–863 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2524-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2524-9