↓ Skip to main content

Patient-specific mental rehearsal with interactive visual aids: a path worth exploring?

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Patient-specific mental rehearsal with interactive visual aids: a path worth exploring?
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5788-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marina Yiasemidou, Raffaele Galli, Daniel Glassman, Matthew Tang, Rahoz Aziz, David Jayne, Danilo Miskovic

Abstract

Surgeons of today are faced with unprecedented challenges; necessitating a novel approach to pre-operative preparation which takes into account the specific tests each case poses. In this study, we examine patient-specific mental rehearsal for pre-surgical practice and assess whether this method has an additional effect when compared to generic mental rehearsal. Sixteen medical students were trained how to perform a simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC). After baseline assessments, they were randomised to two equal groups and asked to complete three SLCs involving different anatomical variants. Prior to each procedure, Group A practiced mental rehearsal with the use of a pre-prepared checklist and Group B mental rehearsal with the checklist combined with virtual models matching the anatomical variations of the SLCs. The performance of the two groups was compared using simulator provided metrics and competency assessment tool (CAT) scoring by two blinded assessors. The participants performed equally well when presented with a "straight-forward" anatomy [Group A vs. Group B-time sec: 445.5 vs. 496 p = 0.64-NOM: 437 vs. 413 p = 0.88-PL cm: 1317 vs. 1059 p = 0.32-per: 0.5 vs. 0 p = 0.22-NCB: 0 vs. 0 p = 0.71-DVS: 0 vs. 0 p = 0.2]; however, Group B performed significantly better [Group A vs. B Total CAT score-Short Cystic Duct (SCD): 20.5 vs. 26.31 p = 0.02 η (2) = 0.32-Double cystic Artery (DA): 24.75 vs. 30.5 p = 0.03 η (2) = 0.28] and committed less errors (Damage to Vital Structures-DVS, SCD: 4 vs. 0 p = 0.03 η (2)=0.34, DA: 0 vs. 1 p = 0.02 η (2) = 0.22). in the cases with more challenging anatomies. These results suggest that patient-specific preparation with the combination of anatomical models and mental rehearsal may increase operative quality of complex procedures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 19%
Student > Master 7 9%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 24 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Design 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 26 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2020.
All research outputs
#14,362,315
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,280
of 6,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,279
of 317,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#90
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,096 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.