- 332 Downloads
The ability to make an objective evaluation of a surgeon’s operative ability remains an elusive goal. In this study, we used motion analysis as a measure of dexterity in the performance of a simulated operation.
Fifteen surgeons performed a total of 45 laboratory-based laparoscopic cholecystectomies on a cadaveric porcine liver model. Subjects were assigned to one of three groups according to their level of experience in human laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Electromagnetic tracking devices were used to analyze the surgeon’s hand movements as they performed the procedure. Movement data (time, distance, number of movements, and speed of movement) were then compared.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) movement scores across the three groups showed significantly better performance among the experienced laparoscopic surgeons than the novices. Learning curves across repetititions of procedures were plotted. Novices made more improvement than experts.
Motion analysis provides useful data for the assessment of laparoscopic dexterity, and the porcine liver model is a valid simulation of the real procedure.
Key wordsLaparoscopic dexterity Motion analysis Operative ability Cholecystectomy Porcine model
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 8.Rosenbaum DA (1991) Psychological foundations. Human motor control. Academic Press London, pp 79–118Google Scholar
- 14.Spencer F (1978) Teaching and measuring surgical techniques: the technical evaluation of competence. Bull Am Coll Surg 63: 9–12Google Scholar
- 15.Taffinder N, McManus I, Russell R, Darzi A (1998) An objective assessment of laparoscopic psychomotor skills: the effect of a training course on performance. Surg Endos 12: 493Google Scholar
- 16.Taffinder NJ, McManus IC, Jansen J, Russell RCG, Darzi A (1998) An objective assessment of surgeons’ psychomotor skills: validation of the MIST-VR laparoscopic simulator. Br J Surg 85 (Suppl): 75Google Scholar
- 17.Taffinder N, Smith S, Mair J, Russell R, Darzi A (1999) Can a computer measure surgical precision? reliability, validity and feasibility of the ICSAD. Surg Endos 13 (Suppl 1): 81Google Scholar