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
Review
. 2013 May;27(5):1468-77.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2631-7. Epub 2012 Dec 12.

Is motion analysis a valid tool for assessing laparoscopic skill?

Affiliations
Review

Is motion analysis a valid tool for assessing laparoscopic skill?

John D Mason et al. Surg Endosc. 2013 May.

Abstract

Background: The use of simulation for laparoscopic training has led to the development of objective tools for skills assessment. Motion analysis represents one area of focus. This study was designed to assess the evidence for the use of motion analysis as a valid tool for laparoscopic skills assessment.

Methods: Embase, MEDLINE and PubMed were searched using the following domains: (1) motion analysis, (2) validation and (3) laparoscopy. Studies investigating motion analysis as a tool for assessment of laparoscopic skill in general surgery were included. Common endpoints in motion analysis metrics were compared between studies according to a modified form of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence and recommendation.

Results: Thirteen studies were included from 2,039 initial papers. Twelve (92.3 %) reported the construct validity of motion analysis across a range of laparoscopic tasks. Of these 12, 5 (41.7 %) evaluated the ProMIS Augmented Reality Simulator, 3 (25 %) the Imperial College Surgical Assessment Device (ICSAD), 2 (16.7 %) the Hiroshima University Endoscopic Surgical Assessment Device (HUESAD), 1 (8.33 %) the Advanced Dundee Endoscopic Psychomotor Tester (ADEPT) and 1 (8.33 %) the Robotic and Video Motion Analysis Software (ROVIMAS). Face validity was reported by 1 (7.7 %) study each for ADEPT and ICSAD. Concurrent validity was reported by 1 (7.7 %) study each for ADEPT, ICSAD and ProMIS. There was no evidence for predictive validity.

Conclusions: Evidence exists to validate motion analysis for use in laparoscopic skills assessment. Valid parameters are time taken, path length and number of hand movements. Future work should concentrate on the conversion of motion data into competency-based scores for trainee feedback.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. J Am Coll Surg. 1999 Dec;189(6):566-74 - PubMed
    1. BMJ. 1994 Jul 30;309(6950):342 - PubMed
    1. BMJ. 1999 Apr 3;318(7188):887-8 - PubMed
    1. Surg Endosc. 2010 May;24(5):1031-9 - PubMed
    1. Surg Endosc. 2009 Jan;23(1):130-9 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources