Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 Jan-Feb;16(1):72-80.
doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2748. Epub 2008 Oct 24.

Validation of knowledge acquisition for surgical process models

Thomas Neumuth  1 , Pierre Jannin, Gero Strauss, Juergen Meixensberger, Oliver Burgert
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Validation of knowledge acquisition for surgical process models

Thomas Neumuth et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

Objective: Surgical Process Models (SPMs) are models of surgical interventions. The objectives of this study are to validate acquisition methods for Surgical Process Models and to assess the performance of different observer populations.

Design: The study examined 180 SPM of simulated Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgeries (FESS), recorded with observation software. About 150,000 single measurements in total were analyzed.

Measurements: Validation metrics were used for assessing the granularity, content accuracy, and temporal accuracy of structures of SPMs.

Results: Differences between live observations and video observations are not statistically significant. Observations performed by subjects with medical backgrounds gave better results than observations performed by subjects with technical backgrounds. Granularity was reconstructed correctly by 90%, content by 91%, and the mean temporal accuracy was 1.8 s.

Conclusion: The study shows the validity of video as well as live observations for modeling Surgical Process Models. For routine use, the authors recommend live observations due to their flexibility and effectiveness. If high precision is needed or the SPM parameters are altered during the study, video observations are the preferable approach.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A screenshot of the Surgical Workflow Editor.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Computation of validation metrics.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Types of structural outliers.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lemke HU, Vannier MW. The operating room and the need for an IT infrastructure and standards Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2006;1(3):117-122.
    1. Cleary K, Kinsella A, Mun SK. OR2020 Workshop report: operating room of the futureIn: Lemke HU, Inamura K, Doi K, Vannier MW, Farman AG, editors. CARS 2005: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery; 2005 June 22-25; Berlin, Germany. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 832-838.
    1. Lemke HU. Summary of the white paper of DICOM WG24: DICOM in Surgery”In: Horii SC, Andriole KP, editors. SPIE Medical Imaging 2007. vol. PACS and Imaging Informatics. Bellingham, WA: SPIE; 2007. pp. 651603.
    1. Burgert O, Neumuth T, Gessat M, Jacobs S, Lemke HU. Deriving DICOM Surgical Extensions from Surgical WorkflowsIn: Horii SC, Andriole KP, editors. SPIE Medical Imaging 2007. vol. PACS and Imaging Informatics. Bellingham, WA: SPIE; 2007. pp. CID65150B.
    1. Jannin P, Raimbault M, Morandi X, Riffaud L, Gibaud B. Model of surgical procedures for multimodal image-guided neurosurgery Comput Aided Surg. 2003;8(2):98-106. - PubMed

Publication types