| Literature DB >> 31980955 |
Sandeep Ganni1,2,3, Sanne M B I Botden4, Magdalena Chmarra5, Meng Li5,6, Richard H M Goossens5, Jack J Jakimowicz5,6.
Abstract
Motion tracking software for assessing laparoscopic surgical proficiency has been proven to be effective in differentiating between expert and novice performances. However, with several indices that can be generated from the software, there is no set threshold that can be used to benchmark performances. The aim of this study was to identify the best possible algorithm that can be used to benchmark expert, intermediate and novice performances for objective evaluation of psychomotor skills. 12 video recordings of various surgeons were collected in a blinded fashion. Data from our previous study of 6 experts and 23 novices was also included in the analysis to determine thresholds for performance. Video recording were analyzed both by the Kinovea 0.8.15 software and a blinded expert observer using the CAT form. Multiple algorithms were tested to accurately identify expert and novice performances. ½ L + [Formula: see text] A + [Formula: see text] J scoring of path length, average movement and jerk index respectively resulted in identifying 23/24 performances. Comparing the algorithm to CAT assessment yielded in a linear regression coefficient R2 of 0.844. The value of motion tracking software in providing objective clinical evaluation and retrospective analysis is evident. Given the prospective use of this tool the algorithm developed in this study proves to be effective in benchmarking performances for psychomotor skills evaluation.Entities:
Keywords: Indices of performance; Laparoscopic skills training; Motion tracking; Objective evaluation; Thresholds of performance; Video-based assessment
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31980955 PMCID: PMC6981315 DOI: 10.1007/s10916-020-1525-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Syst ISSN: 0148-5598 Impact factor: 4.460
Ideal thresholding output from the algorithm
| Threshold | Category | Procedures performed |
|---|---|---|
| p > =2/3 | Expert | 200 or more procedures |
| p < =1/3 | Novice | 10 or fewer procedures |
The values of the weighting parameters for the thresholding and the corresponding number of correctly identified experts and novices
| Set | Path length (L) | Average distance (A) | Extreme movements (J) | Correctly Identified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 1/3 | 20/24 |
| 2 | 1/3 | 1/6 | 1/2 | 18/24 |
| 3 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 1/6 | 19/24 |
| 4 | 1/6 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 15/24 |
| 5 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/6 | 23/24 |
| 6 | 1/6 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 18/24 |
| 7 | 1/2 | 1/6 | 1/3 | 21/24 |
The weighted score is the score calculated using the data extracted for the video and the thresholding equation, performance algorithm
| Video | Score performance algorithm | Category Identified by thresholds | CAT Score | Actual video category |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.00 | Expert | 21 | Surgeon |
| 2 | 1.00 | Expert | 22 | Surgeon |
| 3 | 1.00 | Expert | 20 | Surgeon |
| 4 | 0.86 | Expert | 19 | Surgeon |
| 5 | 0.67 | Expert | 20 | Surgeon |
| 6 | 0.63 | Intermediate | 19 | Surgeon |
| 7 | 0.54 | Intermediate | 17 | Resident |
| 8 | 0.41 | Intermediate | 14 | Resident |
| 9 | 0.36 | Intermediate | 14 | Resident |
| 10 | 0.35 | Intermediate | 13 | Resident |
| 11 | 0.09 | Novice | 14 | Resident |
| 12 | 0.00 | Novice | 13 | Resident |
Along with the category that this score yields (from Table 1). The Expert CAT score for that video is also shown and whether the video was, in fact, performed by an experienced surgeon or a student
Fig. 1Plot of Weighted score of videos, p vs expert-assessed CAT score. The linear trendline has a regression coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.844