Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modern Metrics for Evaluating Surgical Technical Skills

  • Surgical Education (S. Tisherman, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Surgery Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of review

Assessment of surgical technical skills has traditionally occurred through informal means using sporadic and subjective feedback. Recent trends in patient safety, simulation training, and technological advances have generated a need for accurate and objective assessment of surgical technical skills. This review is intended to identify the breadth and scope of recent approaches to surgical skill assessment and metrics and define gaps for further development.

Recent findings

Surgical skill assessment methods can be broadly categorized as (1) assessments by expert observations using validated task-specific checklists and global rating scales, (2) automated motion tracking metrics using mechanical force sensors, accelerometers or computer video analysis, and (3) mechanical outcome metrics.

Summary

Surgical skill assessments are likely to play an ever-increasing role in surgical training and certification. Further research is needed to determine the optimal metrics for assessment and to identify relevant real-world outcomes.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Bridges M, Diamond DL. The financial impact of teaching surgical residents in the operating room. Am J Surg. 1999;177:28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vassilou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, et al. A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg. 2005;190:107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ellison EC, Carey LC. Lessons learned from the evolution of the laparoscopic revolution. Surg Clin North Am. 2008;88:927.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Edwards MJ, Edwards KD, White C, et al. Saving the military surgeon: maintaining critical clinical skills in a changing military and medical environment. J Am Col Surg. 2016;222:1258–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Antevil JL, Bailey JA, Bowyer MW, Ritter EM, Elster EA. A New Reality: Critical Skills Retention and Readiness for Military Surgeons. Int Rev Armed Forces Med Serv. 2016;89(1):53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. http://www.flsprogram.org/.

  8. •• De Montbrun S, Roberts PL, Satterthwaite L, MacRae H. Implementing and evaluating a national certification technical skills examination. Ann Surg. 2016;264:1–6. Colorectal Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (COSATS) demonstration of a trial of implementing a surgical skills assessment into a national board certification—all individuals who failed the COSATS passed the oral examination.

  9. Gallagher AG, Neary P, Gillen P, et al. Novel method for assessment and selection of trainees for higher surgical training in general surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2008;78(4):282–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Salgado J, Grantcharo TP, Papasavas PK, Gagne DJ, Cuashaj PF. Technical skills assessment as part of the selection process for a fellowship in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(3):641–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vedula SS, Ishii M, Hager GD. Objective assessment of surgical technical skill and competency in the operating room. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2017;19:301–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Madani A, Vassilou MC, Watanabe Y, et al. What are the principles that guide behaviors in the operating room? Ann Surg. 2016;265:255–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Martin JA, Rehehr G, Reznick R, et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg. 1997;84:273–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC, et al. Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol. 2012;187:247–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. • Hogle NJ, Liu Y, Ogden RT, Fowler DL. Evaluation of surgical fellows’ laparoscopic performance using Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS). Surg Endosc. 2014;28:1284–1290. Study demonstrating implementation of GOALS evaluation into minimally invasive surgery fellowship to evaluate performance on advance procedures—the assessment method was able to differentiate novice fellows from graduating fellows and established construct validity of this method.

  16. Wagner JP, Chen DC, Donahue TR, et al. Assessment of resident operative performance using a real-time mobile web system: preparing for the milestone age. J Surg Ed. 2014;71:e41–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ghaderi I, Auvergne L, Park YS, Farrell TM. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of performance during advanced laparoscopic fellowship: a curriculum based on structured assessment and feedback. Am J Surg. 2015;209:71–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Herrera-Almario GE, Kirk K, Guerrero VT, et al. The effect of video review of resident laparoscopic surgical skills measured by self-and external assessment. Am J Surg. 2016;211:315–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. • Meyerson SL, Tong BC, Balderson SS, et al. Needs assessment for an errors-based curriculum on thoracoscopic lobectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94:368–373. Identified cognitive and technical errors in surgical performance for this specific procedure and demonstrated the value of error and error recovery metrics for in-depth learning.

  20. Bonrath EM, Zevin B, Dedy NJ, Grantcharov TP. Error rating tool to identify and analyze technical errors and events in laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1080–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. • Law KE, Gwillim EC, Ray RD, et al. Error tolerance: an evaluation of residents’ repeated motor coordination errors. Am J Surg. 2016;212:609–614. Repeated failed attempts to correct as error and time to recover from an error are shown to be a valid performance metrics for residents learning laparoscopic skills on a simulator.

  22. Sternbach JM, Wang K, El Khoury R, et al. Measuring error identification and recovery skills in surgical residents. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103:663–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen C, White L, Kowalewski T, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: a novel method to evaluate surgical performance. J Surg Res. 2014;187:65–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Malpani A, Vedula SS, Chen CC, Hager GD. A study of crowdsourced segment-level surgical skill assessment using pairwise rankings. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2015;10:1435–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Deal SB, Lendvay TS, Haque MI, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: an opportunity for improvement in the assessment of laparoscopic surgical skills. Am J Surg. 2016;211:398–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kowalewski TM, Comstock B, Sweet R, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills for validation of basic laparoscopic urologic skills tasks. J Urol. 2016;195:1859–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Powers MK, Boonjindasup A, Pinsky M, et al. Crowdsourcing assessment of surgeon dissection of renal artery and vein during robotic partial nephrectomy: a novel approach for quantitative assessment of surgical performance. J Endourol. 2016;30:447–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ghani KR, Miller DC, Linsell S, et al. Measuring to improve: peer and crowd-sourced assessments of technical skill with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur J Urol. 2016;69:547–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Holst D, Lowalewski TM, White LW, et al. Crowd-sourced assessment of technical skills: differentiating animate surgical skill through the wisdom of crowds. J Endoruol. 2015;29:1183–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vernez SL, Huynh V, Osann K, et al. C-SATS: assessing surgical skills among urology residency applicants. J Endourol. 2017;31:S95–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA. 1983;250:777–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Stefanidis D, Yonce TC, Korndorffer JR, et al. Does the incorporation of motion metrics into the existing FLS metrics lead to improved skill acquisition on simulators? Ann Surg. 2013;258:46–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Loukas C, Rouseas C, Georgiou E. The role of hand motion connectivity in the performance of laparoscopic procedures on a virtual reality simulator. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2014;51:911–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Horeman T, Dankelman J, Jansen FW, van den Dobbelsteen JJ. Assessment of laparoscopic skills based on force and motion parameters. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2014;61:805–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Prasad MSR, Manivannan M, Manoharan G, Chandramohan AM. Objective assessment of laparoscopic force and psychomotor skills in a novel virtual reality-based haptic simulator. J Surg Ed. 2016;73:858–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jimbo T, Ieiri S, Obata S, et al. A new innovative laparoscopic fundoplication training simulator with a surgical skill validation system. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:1688–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Poursartip B, LeBel ME, Patel R, et al. Analysis of energy-based metrics for laparoscopic skills assessment. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2017; doi:10.1109/TBME.2017.2706499.

  38. Chowriappa AJ, Shi Y, Raza SJ, et al. Development and validation of a composite scoring system for robot-assisted surgical training—the robotic skills assessment score. J Surg Res. 2013;185:561–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Brown J, O’Brien C, Leung S, et al. Using contact forces and robot arm accelerations to automatically rate surgeon skill at peg transfer. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2016; doi:10.1109/TBME.2016.2634861.

  40. Khemani S, Arora A, Tolley N, Darzi A. Objective skills assessment and construct validation of a virtual reality temporal bone simulator. Otol Neurotol. 2012;33:1225–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pourkand A, Salas C, Regalado J, et al. Objective evaluation of motor skills for orthopedic residents using a motion tracking drill system: outcomes of an ABOS approved surgical skills training program. Iowa Ortho J. 2016;36:13–19.

  42. Singapogu R, Kavathekar T, Eidt J, et al. A novel platform for assessment of surgical suturing skill: preliminary results. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;220:375–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Alvand A, Khan T, Al-Ali S, et al. Simple visual parameters for objective assessment of arthroscopic skill. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:e97(1–7).

  44. Ang WJJ, Edward M, Partridge R, et al. Validating the use of smartphone-based accelerometers for performance assessment in a simulated neurosurgical task. Oper. Neurosurg. 2014;10:57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. • Ghasemloonia A, Maddahi Y, Zareinia K, et al. Surgical skill assessment using motion quality and smoothness. J Surg Ed. 2017;74:295–305. Assesses the surgeon’s manual dexterity using a position sensor and accelerometer attached to the surgical instrument measuring a “jerk index” to quantify the smoothness of hand motion for surgeons compared to non-surgeon controls.

  46. Lemos JD, Hernandez AM, Soto-Romero G. An instrumented glove to assess manual dexterity in simulation-based neurosurgical education. Sensors. 2017;17:988.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Shaharan S, Nugent E, Ryan DM, et al. Surgical skill retention: can Patriot motion tracking system provide an objective measurement for it. J Surg Ed. 2016;73:245–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Uemura M, Tomikawa M, Kumashiro R, et al. Analysis of hand motion differentiates expert and novice surgeons. J Surg Res. 2014;188:8–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. D’Angelo AD, Rutherford DN, Ray RD, et al. Idle time: an underdeveloped performance metric for assessing surgical skill. Am J Surg. 2015;209:645–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Zia A, Sharma Y, Bettadapura V, et al. Automated video-based assessment of surgical skills for training and evaluation in medical schools. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2016;11:1623–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Cagiltay NE, Ozcelik E, Sengul G, Berker M. Construct and face validity of the educational computer-based environment (ECE) assessment scenarios for basic endoneurosurgery skills. Surg Endosc. 2017; doi:10.1007/s00464-017-5502-4.

  52. Islam G, Kahol K, Li B, et al. Affordable, web-based surgical skill training and evaluation tool. J Biomed Inf. 2016;59:102–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sanchez-Margallo JA, Sanchez-Margallo FM, Oropesa I, et al. Objective assessment based on motion-related metrics and technical performance in laparoscopic suturing. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2017;12:307–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. • Burns GT, King BW, Holmes JR, Irwin TA. Evaluating internal fixation skills using surgical simulation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99:e21(1–8). Study of orthopedic surgical skills that includes not only force-related metrics, but also measures the quality of the repair using the strength and stiffness of the repaired bone.

  55. D’Angelo AD, Rutherford DN, Ray RD, et al. Working volume: validity evidence for a motion based metric of surgical efficiency. Am J Surg. 2016;211:445–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Day RW, Fleming J, Katz MH, et al. Rapid assessment of technical competency: the 8-min suture test. J Surg Res. 2016;200:46–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Derossis AM, Fried BM, Abrahamowicz M, et al. Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg. 1998;175:482–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Gallagher AG, Jordan-Black JA, O’Sullivan GC. Prospective, randomized assessment of the acquisition, maintenance, and loss of laparoscopic skills. Ann Surg. 2012;256:387–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC, et al. Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator—role as an assessment tool? J Urol. 2012;187:998–1002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Brinkman WM, Tjiam IM, Buzink SN. Assessment of basic laparoscopic skills on virtual reality simulator or box trainer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3584–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Eldred-Evans D, Grange P, Cheang A, et al. Using the mind as a simulator: a randomized controlled trial of mental training. J Surg Ed. 2013;70:544–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Mohtashami F, Thiele A, Karreman E, Thiel J. Comparing technical dexterity of sleep-deprived versus intoxicated surgeons. J Soc Laparoendos Surg. 2014;18(e2014):00142.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Usta TA, Ozkaynak A, Kovalak E, et al. An assessment of the new generation three-dimensional high definition laparoscopic vision system on surgical skills: a randomized prospective study. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:2305–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Dubuisson J, Vilmin F, Boulvain M, et al. Do laparoscopic pelvic trainer exercises improve residents’ surgical skills? A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;206:177–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lahanas V, Loukas C, Georgiou K, et al. Virtual reality-based assessment of basic laparoscopic skills using the leap motion controller. Surg Endosc. 2017; doi:10.1007/s00464-017-5503-3.

  66. Vedula SS, Malpani A, Ahmidi N, et al. Task-level vs. segment-level quantitative metrics for surgical skill assessment. J Surg Ed. 2016;73:482–489.

  67. Rittenhouse N, Sharma B, Sonnadara R, et al. Design and validation of an assessment tool for open surgical procedures. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:918–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Nebiker CA, Mechera R. Residents’ performance in open versus laparoscopic bench-model cholecystectomy in a hands-on surgical course. Int J Surg. 2015;19:15–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Bansal VK, Raveendran R, Misra MC, et al. A prospective randomized controlled blinded study to evaluate the effect of short-term focused training program in laparoscopy on operating room performance of surgery residents. J Surg Ed. 2014;71:52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Bellorin O, Kundel A, Sharma S, et al. Training model for laparoscopic Heller and Dor fundoplication: a tool for laparoscopic skills training and assessment-construct validity using the GOALS score. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:3654–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Din N, Smith P, Emeriewen K, et al. Man versus machine: software training for surgeons—an objective evaluation of human and computer-based training tools for cataract surgical performance. J Ophthalmol. 2016; doi:10.1155/2016/3548039.

  72. Motley WW, Golnik KC, Anteby I, et al. Validity of ophthalmology surgical competency assessment rubric for strabismus surgery in resident training. J AAPOS. 2016;20:184–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Camp CL, Krych AJ, Stuart MJ, et al. A prospective value assessment of simulators and cadaveric skills laboratories. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:220–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Bowles PFD, Harries M, Young P, et al. A validation study on the use of intra-operative video recording as an objective assessment tool for core ENT surgery. Clin Otolaryngol. 2014;39:102–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Fried MP, Kaye RJ, Gibber MJ, Jackman AH, Paskhover BP, Sadoughi B, et al. Criterion-based (proficiency) training to improve surgical performance. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;138(11):1024–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. • Mackenzie CF, Garofalo E, Puche A, et al. Performance of vascular exposure and fasciotomy among surgical residents before and after training compared with experts. JAMA Surg. 2017; doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0092. Trauma surgery skills assessment using a trauma readiness index.

  77. Huang E, Vaughn CJ, Chern H, et al. An objective assessment tool for basic surgical knot-tying skills. J Surg Ed. 2015;72:572–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Acosta S, Sevonius D, Beckman A. Extended score interval in the assessment of basic surgical skills. Med Educ Online. 2015;20:25819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Chang OH, King LP, Modest AM, Hur H. Developing an objective structured assessment of technical skills for laparoscopic suturing and intracorporeal knot tying. J Surg Ed. 2015;73:258–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Ponton-Carss A, Kortbeek JB. MA IWY. Assessment of technical and nontechnical skills in surgical residents. Am J Surg. 2016;212:1011–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Carlsen CG, Lindorff-Larsen K, Funch-Jensen, et al. Reliable and valid assessment of Lichtenstein hernia repair skills. Hernia. 2014;18:543–548.

  82. Palter VN, Orzech N, Reznick RK, Grantcharov TP. Validation of a structured training and assessment curriculum for technical skill acquisition in minimally invasive surgery. Ann Surg. 2013;257:224–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Nickel F, Hendrie JD, Stock C, et al. Direct observation versus endoscopic video recording-based rating with the objective structured assessment of technical skills for training of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur Surg Res. 2016;57:1–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Zevin B, Bonrath EM, Aggarwal R, et al. Development, feasibility, validity, and reliability of a scale for objective assessment of operative performance in laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:955–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. De Montbrun SL, Roberts PL, Lowry AC, et al. A novel approach to assessing technical competence of colorectal surgery residents. Ann Surg. 2013;258:1001–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Goderstad JM, Sandvik L, Fosse E, Lieng M. Assessment of surgical competence: development and validation of rating scales used for laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. J Surg Ed. 2016;73:600–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Patel NR, Makai GE, Sloan NL, Della Badia CR. Traditional versus simulation resident surgical laparoscopic salpingectomy training: a randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:372–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Thomsen ASS, Bach-Holm D, Kjaerbo H, et al. Operating room performance improves after proficiency-based virtual reality cataract surgery training. Ophthalmology. 2017;124:524–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Bernard JA, Dattilo JR, Srikumaran U, et al. Reliability and validity of 3 methods of assessing orthopedic resident skill in shoulder surgery. J Surg Ed. 2016;73:1020–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Angelo RL, Rvu RK, Pedowitz RA, Gallagher AG. Metric development for an arthroscopic Bankart procedure: assessment of face and content validity. Arthroscopy. 2015;31:1430–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Hodgkins JL, Veillette C, Biau D, Sonnadara R. The knee arthroscopy learning curve: quantitative assessment of surgical skills. Arthroscopy. 2014;30:613–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. MacEwan MJ, Dudek NL, Wood TJ, Gofton WT. Continued validation of the O-SCORE (Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation): use in the simulated environment. Teach Learn Med. 2016;28:72–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Qassemyar Q, Boulart L. A 4-task skills examination for residents for the assessment of technical ability in hand trauma surgery. J Surg Ed. 2015;72:179–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Hussein AA, Ghani KR, Peabody J, et al. Development and validation of an objective scoring tool for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: prostatectomy assessment and competency evaluation. J Urol. 2017;197:1237–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Holzmacher J, Sarani B, Puche A, et al. Can hyper-realistic physical models of peripheral vessel exposure and fasciotomy replace cadavers for performance assessment? J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;83:S130–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Sigounas VY, Callas PW, Nicholas C, et al. Evaluation of simulation-based training model on vascular anastomotic skills for surgical residents. Sim Healthcare. 2012;7:334–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Peden RG, Mercer R, Tathan AJ. The use of head-mounted display eyeglasses for teaching surgical skills: a prospective randomized study. Int J Surg. 2016;34:169–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Bilgic E, Watanabe Y, McKendy K, et al. Reliable assessment of operative performance. Am J Surg. 2016;211:426–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Zendejas B, Jakub JW, Terando AM, et al. Laparoscopic skill assessment of practicing surgeons prior to enrollment in a surgical trial of a new laparoscopic procedure. Surg Endosc. 2016;31 (8):3313–3319.

  100. Siddiqui NY, Galloway ML, Geller EJ, et al. Validity and reliability of the robotic objective structured assessment of technical skills. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1193–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Aghazadeh MA, Jayaratna IS, Hung AJ, et al. External validation of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS). Surg Endosc. 2015;29:3261–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Sanchez R, Rodriguez O, Rosciano J, et al. Robotic surgery training: construct validity of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS). 2016;10(3):227–231.

  103. Gas BL, Huckarma EH, Mohan M, et al. Objective assessment of general surgery residents followed by remediation. J Surg Ed. 2016;73:e71–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Tansley G, Bailey JG, Murray M, et al. Efficacy of surgical simulation training in a low-income country. World J Surg. 2016;40:2643–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Kramp KH, van Det MJ, Hoff C, et al. Validity and reliability of Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) in novice trainees performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Surg Ed. 2014;72:3510358.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Singh P, Aggarwal R, Tahir M, et al. A randomized controlled study to evaluate the role of video-based coaching in training laparoscopic skills. Ann Surg. 2015;261:862–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Kurashima Y, Feldman LS, Kaneva PA, et al. Simulation-based training improves the operative performance of totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:783–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Louridas M, Bonrath EM, Sinclair DA, et al. Randomized clinical trial to evaluate mental practice in enhancing advanced laparoscopic surgical performance. Br J Surg. 2015;102:37–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Sarkiss CA, Philemond S, Lee J, et al. Neurosurgical skills assessment: measuring technical proficiency in neurosurgery residents through intraoperative video evaluations. World Neurosurg. 2016;89:1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Aoun SG, El Ahmadieh TY, El Tecle NE, et al. A pilot study to assess the construct and face validity of the Northwestern Objective Microanastomosis Assessment tool. J Neurosurg. 2015;123:103–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Joint Trauma System, Joint Base San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA

    Stacy Shackelford & Mark Bowyer

  2. Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Mark Bowyer

Authors
  1. Stacy Shackelford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Bowyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stacy Shackelford.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical collection on Surgical Education.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shackelford, S., Bowyer, M. Modern Metrics for Evaluating Surgical Technical Skills. Curr Surg Rep 5, 24 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-017-0187-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-017-0187-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation