| Title |
A software-based tool for video motion tracking in the surgical skills assessment landscape
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-018-6023-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sandeep Ganni, Sanne M. B. I. Botden, Magdalena Chmarra, Richard H. M. Goossens, Jack J. Jakimowicz |
| Abstract |
The use of motion tracking has been proved to provide an objective assessment in surgical skills training. Current systems, however, require the use of additional equipment or specialised laparoscopic instruments and cameras to extract the data. The aim of this study was to determine the possibility of using a software-based solution to extract the data. 6 expert and 23 novice participants performed a basic laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure in the operating room. The recorded videos were analysed using Kinovea 0.8.15 and the following parameters calculated the path length, average instrument movement and number of sudden or extreme movements. The analysed data showed that experts had significantly shorter path length (median 127 cm vs. 187 cm, p = 0.01), smaller average movements (median 0.40 cm vs. 0.32 cm, p = 0.002) and fewer sudden movements (median 14.00 vs. 21.61, p = 0.001) than their novice counterparts. The use of software-based video motion tracking of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a simple and viable method enabling objective assessment of surgical performance. It provides clear discrimination between expert and novice performance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 63% |
| Italy | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
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 > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 20 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 32% |
| Engineering | 12 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 8% |
| Design | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 23 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,201,863
of 24,980,180 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,436
of 6,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,057
of 453,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#72
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,980,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,717 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
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 453,887 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.