The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Use of Electromagnetic Motion Tracking Analysis To Objectively Measure Open Surgical Skill in The Laboratory-Based Model
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technical performance has traditionally been assessed subjectively within the operating theater, with few successful attempts at objective analysis. The Imperial College Surgical Assessment Device (ICSAD) has already been shown to be a valid quantitative measure of dexterity in laparoscopic surgical simulation. We describe its application to the assessment of open surgical procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Fifty-one participants were recruited from four different levels of general surgical experience: basic surgical trainees (n = 12), junior specialist registrars (n = 13), senior specialist registrars (n = 13), and consultants (n = 13). They completed two tasks: a small bowel anastomosis and a vein patch insertion into an artery. Surgical performance was measured with the Imperial College Surgical Assessment Device, a motion analysis system that measures the number of hand movements made and time taken to complete a task. The four groups were compared statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis test (K-W). Pairwise group comparisons used the Mann-Whitney U test and p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons to determine the statistical significance of these comparisons. RESULTS: Mean values for number of movements and time (secs) for small bowel anastomosis were 2,080/1,236 (basic surgical trainees), 1,673/1,016 (junior specialist registrars), 1,375/862 (senior specialist registrars), and 1,337/782 (consultants), respectively. Comparison of the medians by K-W revealed a p < 0.001 for each variable (No. of movements, time), respectively. Mean vein patch insertion results were 1,653/1,258, 1,297/1,006, 1,090/912, and 925/736 for each of the four groups. Again, comparison of the medians by K-W revealed a p < 0.001 for each variable. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that hand motion analysis may be an effective objective measure of dexterity in open surgical simulation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Teaching Surgical Skills — Changes in the Wind
Reznick, R. K., & MacRae, H. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra054785 · Cited by 1,761
Gofton, W. T., Dudek, N. L., Wood, T. J., Balaa, F., & Hamstra, S. J. (2012) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3182677805 · Cited by 314
Towards automatic skill evaluation: Detection and segmentation of robot-assisted surgical motions
Lin, H. C., Shafran, I., Yuh, D., & Hager, G. D. (2006) · Computer Aided Surgery · doi:10.3109/10929080600989189 · Cited by 254
Modeling Surgical Technical Skill Using Expert Assessment for Automated Computer Rating
Azari, D. P., Frasier, L. L., Quamme, S. R. P., Greenberg, C. C., Pugh, C. M., Greenberg, J. A., & Radwin, R. G. (2019) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000002478 · Cited by 84
Metadata
- Authors
- Datta, V., Mackay, S., Mandalia, M., & Darzi, A.
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Surgeons
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 193
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 479-485
- ISSN
- 1072-7515 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1575406964
- Cited by
- 415
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Use of Electromagnetic Motion Tracking Analysis To Objectively Measure Open Surgical Skill in The Laboratory-Based Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1072-7515(01)01041-9
- The paper
- 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. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1072-7515(01)01041-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.