skip to main content
10.1145/2534329.2534345acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessiggraphConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Benchmarking expert surgeons' path for evaluating a trainee surgeon's performance

Published:17 November 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

The affordance of independent learning is one of the most important advantages of computer simulators for surgical training. This advantage can get dull if the simulator does not provide the useful instructional feedback to the user and the instructor has to supervise and tutor the trainee while using the simulator. In fact the continued need of instructor feedback with most existing simulators is often cited as a primary reason for the reluctance of many medical schools to fully embrace simulator technology [Sewell 2007]. Thus the incorporation of relevant, intuitive metrics in a way that it provides a constructive feedback which facilitates independent learning is essential for the development of efficient simulators. Evaluating a trainee surgeon's performance as per trainer surgeon's desire is always a challenging problem in the development of minimal invasive surgery simulators. In this research we have proposed a novel metric for trainee surgeons' performance evaluation using machine learning algorithms.

References

  1. Aggarwal, R., Crochet, P., Dias, A., Misra, A., Ziprin, P., and Darzi, A. 2009. Development of a virtual reality training curriculum for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In British Journal of Surgery, 96(9), 1086--1093.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Allard, J., Cotin, S., Faure, F., Bensoussan, P. J., Poyer, F., Duriez, C., Delingette, H., and Grisoni, L. 2007. Sofa - an open source framework for medical simulation. In Medicine Meets Virtual Reality, MMVR 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, B., Nistor, V., Dutson, E., Carman, G., Lewis, C., and Faloutsos, P. 2010. Support vector machines improve the accuracy of evaluation for the performance of laparoscopic training tasks. In Surgical endoscopy, 24(1), 170--178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bajka, M., Tuchschmid, S., Fink, D., Székely, G., and Harders, M. 2010. Establishing construct validity of a virtual-reality training simulator for hysteroscopy via a multimetric scoring system. In Surgical endoscopy, 24(1), 79--88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Gallagher, A. G. 2012. Metric-based simulation training to proficiency in medical education: What it is and how to do it, In The Ulster Medical Journal, vol. 3 (July), 107--113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Gallagher, A. G., and O'Sullivan, G. C. 2011. Fundamentals of Surgical Simulation: Principles and Practice. Springer London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Hofstad, E. F., Våpenstad, C., Chmarra, M. K., Langø, T., Kuhry, E., and Mårvik, R. 2012. A study of psychomotor skills in minimally invasive surgery: what differentiates expert and nonexpert performance. In Surgical endoscopy, 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Loukas, C., Rouseas, C., and Georgiou, E. 2013. The role of hand motion connectivity in the performance of laparoscopic procedures on a virtual reality simulator, In Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Megali, G., Sinigaglia, S., Tonet, O. and Dario, P. 2006. Modelling and Evaluation of Surgical Performance Using Hidden Markov Models, In IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 53, 10 (October), 1911--1919.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Montbrun, S. D. and MacRae, H. 2013. Simulation and Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery, In Seminars in Colon and Rectal Surgery, vol. 24 (March), 53--60Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Nugent, E., Shirilla, N., Hafeez, A., O'Riordain, D. S., Traynor, O., Harrison, A. M., and Neary, P. 2013. Development and evaluation of a simulator-based laparoscopic training program for surgical novices. In Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 27(1), 214--221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Pellen, M. G., Horgan, L. F., Barton, J. R., and Attwood, S. E. 2009. Construct validity of the ProMIS laparoscopic simulator. In Surgical endoscopy, 23(1), 130--139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Sewell, C. 2007. Automatic Performance Evaluation in Surgical Simulation, Diss. Stanford University. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Stefanidis, D., Yonce, T. C., Korndorffer Jr, J. R., Phillips, R., and Coker, A. 2013. Does the Incorporation of Motion Metrics Into the Existing FLS Metrics Lead to Improved Skill Acquisition on Simulators? A Single Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial. In Annals of surgery, 258(1), 46--52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    VRCAI '13: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry
    November 2013
    325 pages
    ISBN:9781450325905
    DOI:10.1145/2534329

    Copyright © 2013 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 17 November 2013

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    VRCAI '13 Paper Acceptance Rate35of75submissions,47%Overall Acceptance Rate51of107submissions,48%

    Upcoming Conference

    SIGGRAPH '24

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader