Objective assessment of surgical skill transfer using non-invasive brain imaging.
Brain imaging
Functional near-infrared spectroscopy
Surgical simulators
Surgical skill assessment
Surgical skill transfer
Surgical training
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2019
08 2019
Historique:
received:
21
03
2018
accepted:
12
10
2018
pubmed:
20
10
2018
medline:
28
4
2020
entrez:
19
10
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Physical and virtual surgical simulators are increasingly being used in training technical surgical skills. However, metrics such as completion time or subjective performance checklists often show poor correlation to transfer of skills into clinical settings. We hypothesize that non-invasive brain imaging can objectively differentiate and classify surgical skill transfer, with higher accuracy than established metrics, for subjects based on motor skill levels. 18 medical students at University at Buffalo were randomly assigned into control, physical surgical trainer, or virtual trainer groups. Training groups practiced a surgical technical task on respective simulators for 12 consecutive days. To measure skill transfer post-training, all subjects performed the technical task in an ex-vivo environment. Cortical activation was measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) in the prefrontal cortex, primary motor cortex, and supplementary motor area, due to their direct impact on motor skill learning. Classification between simulator trained and untrained subjects based on traditional metrics is poor, where misclassification errors range from 20 to 41%. Conversely, fNIRS metrics can successfully classify physical or virtual trained subjects from untrained subjects with misclassification errors of 2.2% and 8.9%, respectively. More importantly, untrained subjects are successfully classified from physical or virtual simulator trained subjects with misclassification errors of 2.7% and 9.1%, respectively. fNIRS metrics are significantly more accurate than current established metrics in classifying different levels of surgical motor skill transfer. Our approach brings robustness, objectivity, and accuracy in validating the effectiveness of future surgical trainers in translating surgical skills to clinically relevant environments.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Physical and virtual surgical simulators are increasingly being used in training technical surgical skills. However, metrics such as completion time or subjective performance checklists often show poor correlation to transfer of skills into clinical settings. We hypothesize that non-invasive brain imaging can objectively differentiate and classify surgical skill transfer, with higher accuracy than established metrics, for subjects based on motor skill levels.
STUDY DESIGN
18 medical students at University at Buffalo were randomly assigned into control, physical surgical trainer, or virtual trainer groups. Training groups practiced a surgical technical task on respective simulators for 12 consecutive days. To measure skill transfer post-training, all subjects performed the technical task in an ex-vivo environment. Cortical activation was measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) in the prefrontal cortex, primary motor cortex, and supplementary motor area, due to their direct impact on motor skill learning.
RESULTS
Classification between simulator trained and untrained subjects based on traditional metrics is poor, where misclassification errors range from 20 to 41%. Conversely, fNIRS metrics can successfully classify physical or virtual trained subjects from untrained subjects with misclassification errors of 2.2% and 8.9%, respectively. More importantly, untrained subjects are successfully classified from physical or virtual simulator trained subjects with misclassification errors of 2.7% and 9.1%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
fNIRS metrics are significantly more accurate than current established metrics in classifying different levels of surgical motor skill transfer. Our approach brings robustness, objectivity, and accuracy in validating the effectiveness of future surgical trainers in translating surgical skills to clinically relevant environments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30334166
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6535-z
pii: 10.1007/s00464-018-6535-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2485-2494Subventions
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : R01 EB005807
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : 1R01CA197491
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : 1R01EB014305
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : 1R01HL119248
Pays : United States
Références
Surg Endosc. 2013 May;27(5):1721-9
pubmed: 23263645
J Neurophysiol. 1998 Nov;80(5):2671-87
pubmed: 9819272
Surgery. 2011 Jun;149(6):735-44
pubmed: 21295810
Neuroimage. 2011 Feb 14;54(4):2922-36
pubmed: 21029781
J Gastrointest Surg. 2008 Feb;12(2):210-2
pubmed: 17955315
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2002 Apr;12(2):217-22
pubmed: 12015240
Surg Endosc. 2014 Feb;28(2):631-8
pubmed: 24100859
Int J Med Robot. 2008 Jun;4(2):131-8
pubmed: 18348181
BMJ. 2003 Nov 1;327(7422):1032-7
pubmed: 14593041
Endoscopy. 2005 Dec;37(12):1198-204
pubmed: 16329017
Am J Surg. 2017 Feb;213(2):336-345
pubmed: 28041606
Neuroimage. 2008 Jan 15;39(2):805-13
pubmed: 17964187
Surg Endosc. 2015 Apr;29(4):815-21
pubmed: 25159626
J Biomed Opt. 2006 Sep-Oct;11(5):054007
pubmed: 17092156
Surg Endosc. 2003 Jun;17(6):964-7
pubmed: 12658417
Surg Endosc. 2014 Mar;28(3):704-11
pubmed: 24253562
Surg Endosc. 2018 Mar;32(3):1265-1272
pubmed: 28812196
Med Biol Eng Comput. 1988 May;26(3):289-94
pubmed: 2855531
Brain Connect. 2016 Jun;6(5):375-88
pubmed: 26899241
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010 Mar;20(2):153-7
pubmed: 20201683
J Biophotonics. 2018 Mar;11(3):
pubmed: 28696034
Am J Surg. 2007 May;193(5):551-5; discussion 555
pubmed: 17434353
Ann Surg. 2007 Jun;245(6):992-9
pubmed: 17522527
Appl Opt. 2009 Apr 1;48(10):D280-98
pubmed: 19340120
Surg Endosc. 2008 Aug;22(8):1887-93
pubmed: 18270774
J Endourol. 2007 Mar;21(3):244-7
pubmed: 17444766
J Neurosci. 1998 Mar 1;18(5):1827-40
pubmed: 9465007
Surg Endosc. 2009 Oct;23(10):2296-301
pubmed: 19172351
J Biomed Opt. 2005 Jan-Feb;10(1):11014
pubmed: 15847580
Surg Clin North Am. 2010 Jun;90(3):623-33
pubmed: 20497831
Surgery. 2004 Jan;135(1):21-7
pubmed: 14694297
Surg Endosc. 2013 Oct;27(10):3603-15
pubmed: 23572217
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002 May;3(5):348-59
pubmed: 11988774
Surg Endosc. 2005 Dec;19(12):1572-8
pubmed: 16235127
Surgery. 2011 Apr;149(4):525-33
pubmed: 21295807
Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Jan;8(1):18-25
pubmed: 14697399
Surg Endosc. 2007 Nov;21(11):1991-5
pubmed: 17593434
Br J Surg. 2014 Aug;101(9):1063-76
pubmed: 24827930
Phys Med Biol. 1988 Dec;33(12):1433-42
pubmed: 3237772
Neuroimage. 2014 Jan 15;85 Pt 1:127-35
pubmed: 23403181
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006 Feb;7(2):160-6
pubmed: 16429125
Am J Surg. 2014 Jan;207(1):146-57
pubmed: 24238602
Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Nov 1;5(11):487-494
pubmed: 11684481
Surg Endosc. 2009 Jul;23(7):1476-82
pubmed: 19263128
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1999 Apr;9(2):203-8
pubmed: 10322189
Am J Surg. 2005 Jul;190(1):107-13
pubmed: 15972181
Br J Surg. 2004 Feb;91(2):146-50
pubmed: 14760660
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Jan;24(1):62-9
pubmed: 19684304
Bull Am Coll Surg. 2008 Sep;93(9):30-2
pubmed: 19469354
Ann Surg. 2014 Feb;259(2):236-48
pubmed: 24100339
Ann Surg. 2004 Sep;240(3):518-25; discussion 525-8
pubmed: 15319723
Neuroimage. 2012 Feb 1;59(3):2518-28
pubmed: 21945793
Brain. 1998 Nov;121 ( Pt 11):2159-73
pubmed: 9827775
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011 Oct 27;12(12):739-51
pubmed: 22033537
Am J Surg. 2007 Jun;193(6):797-804
pubmed: 17512301
Ann Surg. 2002 Oct;236(4):458-63; discussion 463-4
pubmed: 12368674