BACKGROUND: Recent attention has been directed at developing quantitative assessments of surgical skill. This study aims to demonstrate whether objectively measuring differences in manual dexterity has an impact on a simulated surgical procedure. METHODS: Six general surgical trainees performed 5 polytetrafluoroethylene graft to artery anastomoses on a vascular model by using a standardized technique. Manual dexterity was objectively measured with (1) electromagnetic motion analysis: trackers applied to the backs of hands recorded and analyzed both hand movements and procedural time and (2) 4-parameter evaluation of the final product. Outcome parameters were assessed by (1) rate of anastomotic leakage and (2) smallest cross-sectional area of the anastomosis. RESULTS: The 2 objective measures of manual dexterity correlated closely (Pearson coefficient, 0.423; P <.02). Trainees with better manual dexterity scores produced better outcome measures. Those with better motion analysis scores produced anastomoses that leaked less (Pearson coefficient, 0.514; P <.01) and those with higher global evaluation scores had a larger anastomotic cross-sectional area (Pearson coefficient, 0.495; P <.01). Time taken for the procedure did not appear to influence either outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant correlation between objective measures of manual dexterity and the outcome measures in this model. This suggests that the outcome of a procedure can be predicted by measuring surgical skill.
BACKGROUND: Recent attention has been directed at developing quantitative assessments of surgical skill. This study aims to demonstrate whether objectively measuring differences in manual dexterity has an impact on a simulated surgical procedure. METHODS: Six general surgical trainees performed 5 polytetrafluoroethylene graft to artery anastomoses on a vascular model by using a standardized technique. Manual dexterity was objectively measured with (1) electromagnetic motion analysis: trackers applied to the backs of hands recorded and analyzed both hand movements and procedural time and (2) 4-parameter evaluation of the final product. Outcome parameters were assessed by (1) rate of anastomotic leakage and (2) smallest cross-sectional area of the anastomosis. RESULTS: The 2 objective measures of manual dexterity correlated closely (Pearson coefficient, 0.423; P <.02). Trainees with better manual dexterity scores produced better outcome measures. Those with better motion analysis scores produced anastomoses that leaked less (Pearson coefficient, 0.514; P <.01) and those with higher global evaluation scores had a larger anastomotic cross-sectional area (Pearson coefficient, 0.495; P <.01). Time taken for the procedure did not appear to influence either outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant correlation between objective measures of manual dexterity and the outcome measures in this model. This suggests that the outcome of a procedure can be predicted by measuring surgical skill.
Authors: Anne-Lise D D'Angelo; Drew N Rutherford; Rebecca D Ray; Shlomi Laufer; Calvin Kwan; Elaine R Cohen; Andrea Mason; Carla M Pugh Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Carol-Anne E Moulton; Adam Dubrowski; Helen Macrae; Brent Graham; Ethan Grober; Richard Reznick Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: G Strauss; N Bahrami; A Pössneck; M Strauss; A Dietz; W Korb; T Lüth; R Haase; H Moeckel; R Grunert Journal: HNO Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.284