Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Work domain constraints for modelling surgical performance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Three main approaches can be identified for modelling surgical performance: a competency-based approach, a task-based approach, both largely explored in the literature, and a less known work domain-based approach. The work domain-based approach first describes the work domain properties that constrain the agent’s actions and shape the performance. This paper presents a work domain-based approach for modelling performance during cervical spine surgery, based on the idea that anatomical structures delineate the surgical performance. This model was evaluated through an analysis of junior and senior surgeons’ actions.

Method

Twenty-four cervical spine surgeries performed by two junior and two senior surgeons were recorded in real time by an expert surgeon. According to a work domain-based model describing an optimal progression through anatomical structures, the degree of adjustment of each surgical procedure to a statistical polynomial function was assessed.

Results

Each surgical procedure showed a significant suitability with the model and regression coefficient values around 0.9. However, the surgeries performed by senior surgeons fitted this model significantly better than those performed by junior surgeons. Analysis of the relative frequencies of actions on anatomical structures showed that some specific anatomical structures discriminate senior from junior performances.

Conclusion

The work domain-based modelling approach can provide an overall statistical indicator of surgical performance, but in particular, it can highlight specific points of interest among anatomical structures that the surgeons dwelled on according to their level of expertise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hollands JG, Wickens CD (1999) Engineering psychology and human performance. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  2. Carayon P, Wetterneck TB, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Hundt AS, Hoonakker P, Holden R, Gurses AP (2014) Human factors systems approach to healthcare quality and patient safety. Appl Ergon 45:14–25

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Turner JL, Dankoski ME (2008) Objective structured clinical exams: a critical review. Family Med 40:574–578

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sloan DA, Donnelly MB, Johnson SB, Schwartz RW, Strodel WE (1993) Use of an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) to measure improvement in clinical competence during the surgical internship. Surgery 114:343–350

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, Brown M (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84:273–278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Doyle Webber EM, Sidhu RS (2007) A universal global rating scale for the evaluation of technical skills in the operating room. Am J Surg 193:551–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Datta V, Mackay S, Mandalia M, Darzi A (2001) The use of electromagnetic motion tracking analysis to objectively measure open surgical skill in the laboratory-based model. J Am Coll Surg 193:479–485

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Loukas C, Georgiou E (2013) Surgical workflow analysis with Gaussian mixture multivariate autoregressive (GMMAR) models: a simulation study. Comput Aided Surg 18:47–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Forestier G, Lalys F, Riffaud L, Trelhu, B, Jannin P (2011) Assessment of surgical skills using surgical processes and dynamic time warping. In: M2CAI 2011 (MICCAI workshop) modelling and monitoring of computer-assisted intervention 2011, September

  10. Forestier G, Lalys F, Riffaud L, Louis Collins D, Meixensberger J, Wassef SN, Neumuth T, Goulet B, Jannin P (2013) Multi-site study of surgical practice in neurosurgery based on surgical process models. J Biomed Inf 46:822–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Neumuth T, Jannin P, Schlomberg J, Meixensberger J, Wiedemann P, Burgert O (2011) Analysis of surgical intervention populations using generic surgical process models. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 6:59–71

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Padoy N, Blum T, Ahmadi SA, Feussner H, Berger MO, Navab N (2012) Statistical modeling and recognition of surgical workflow. Med Image Anal 16:632–641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosen J, Brown JD, Chang L, Sinanan MN, Hannaford B (2006) Generalized approach for modeling minimally invasive surgery as a stochastic process using a discrete Markov model. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53:399–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jannin P, Raimbault M, Morandi X, Riffaud L, Gibaud B (2003) Model of surgical procedures for multimodal image-guided neurosurgery. Comput Aided Surg 8:98–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Flach JM (1990) The ecology of human–machine systems I: introduction. Ecol Psychol 2:191–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rasmussen J (1986) Information processing and human–machine interaction. North Holland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Vicente KJ (1999) Cognitive work analysis: toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hajdukiewicz JR, Vicente KJ, Doyle DJ, Milgram P, Burns CM (2001) Modeling a medical environment: an ontology for integrated medical informatics design. Int J Med Inf 62:79–99

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Effken J, Loeb R, Johnson K, Johnson S, Reyna V (2001) Using cognitive work analysis to design clinical displays. Stud Health Technol Inf 1:127–131

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sharp TD, Helmicki AJ (1998) The application of the ecological interface design approach to neonatal intensive care medicine. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society, 42th annual meeting, Santa Monica, CA, pp 350–354

  21. Miller A (2004) A work domain analysis framework for modelling intensive care unit patients. Cogn Technol Work 6:207–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Watson M, Russel WJ, Sanderson P (1999) Ecological interface design for anaesthesia monitoring. In: Proceedings of the Australasian conference on computer–human interaction, 9th annual meeting, Wagga Wagga, Australia, pp 78–84

  23. Morineau T, Morandi X, Le Moëllic N, Jannin P (2013) A cognitive engineering framework for the specification of information requirements in medical imaging: application in image-guided neurosurgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 8:291–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vicente KJ, Wang JH (1998) An ecological theory of expertise effects in memory recall. Psychol Rev 105:33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Neumuth T, Durstewitz N, Fischer M, Strauss G, Dietz A, Meixensberger J, Jannin P, Cleary K, Lemke HU, Bugert O (2006) Structured recording of intraoperative surgical workflows. In: Horii SC, Ratib OM (eds) SPIE medical imaging: pacs and imaging informatics, Bellingam. CID 61450A

  26. Riffaud L, Neumuth T, Morandi X, Trantakis C, Meixensberger J, Burgert O, Trelhu B, Jannin P (2010) Recording of surgical processes: a study comparing senior and junior neurosurgeons during lumbar disc herniation surgery. Neurosurgery 67:325–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ludbrook J, Dudley H (1998) Why permutation tests are superior to t and F tests in biomedical research. Am Stat 52:127–132

    Google Scholar 

  28. Flach JM (2009) The dynamics of experience: a search for what matters. In: Proceedings of the European conference on cognitive ergonomics (ECCE 2009), Helsinki, Finland, pp 11–18

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de Recherches en Psychologie, Cognition et Communication (CRPCC), EA1285, Université de Bretagne-Sud, Centre Yves Coppens, 56000, Vannes, France

    Thierry Morineau

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, Pontchaillou University Hospital, 35033, Rennes Cedex 9, France

    Laurent Riffaud & Xavier Morandi

  3. Laboratoire de Traitement du Signal et de l’Image (LTSI), Inserm, UMR 1099, MediCIS Team, Université de Rennes 1, 35000, Rennes, France

    Laurent Riffaud, Xavier Morandi & Pierre Jannin

  4. Laboratoire de Mathématique de Bretagne Atlantique (LMBA), UMR 6205, Université de Bretagne-Sud, 56000, Vannes, France

    Jonathan Villain

Authors
  1. Thierry Morineau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laurent Riffaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xavier Morandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jonathan Villain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pierre Jannin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thierry Morineau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morineau, T., Riffaud, L., Morandi, X. et al. Work domain constraints for modelling surgical performance. Int J CARS 10, 1589–1597 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-015-1166-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-015-1166-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation