|
1
|
Boal MWE, Anastasiou D, Tesfai F, Ghamrawi W, Mazomenos E, Curtis N, Collins JW, Sridhar A, Kelly J, Stoyanov D, Francis NK. Evaluation of objective tools and artificial intelligence in robotic surgery technical skills assessment: a systematic review. Br J Surg 2024; 111:znad331. [PMID: 37951600 PMCID: PMC10771126 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znad331] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2023] [Revised: 09/18/2023] [Accepted: 09/19/2023] [Indexed: 11/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is a need to standardize training in robotic surgery, including objective assessment for accreditation. This systematic review aimed to identify objective tools for technical skills assessment, providing evaluation statuses to guide research and inform implementation into training curricula. METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Ovid Embase/Medline, PubMed and Web of Science were searched. Inclusion criterion: robotic surgery technical skills tools. Exclusion criteria: non-technical, laparoscopy or open skills only. Manual tools and automated performance metrics (APMs) were analysed using Messick's concept of validity and the Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence and Recommendation (LoR). A bespoke tool analysed artificial intelligence (AI) studies. The Modified Downs-Black checklist was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS Two hundred and forty-seven studies were analysed, identifying: 8 global rating scales, 26 procedure-/task-specific tools, 3 main error-based methods, 10 simulators, 28 studies analysing APMs and 53 AI studies. Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills and the da Vinci Skills Simulator were the most evaluated tools at LoR 1 (OCEBM). Three procedure-specific tools, 3 error-based methods and 1 non-simulator APMs reached LoR 2. AI models estimated outcomes (skill or clinical), demonstrating superior accuracy rates in the laboratory with 60 per cent of methods reporting accuracies over 90 per cent, compared to real surgery ranging from 67 to 100 per cent. CONCLUSIONS Manual and automated assessment tools for robotic surgery are not well validated and require further evaluation before use in accreditation processes.PROSPERO: registration ID CRD42022304901.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew W E Boal
- The Griffin Institute, Northwick Park & St Marks’ Hospital, London, UK
- Wellcome/ESPRC Centre for Interventional Surgical Sciences (WEISS), University College London (UCL), London, UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Research Department of Targeted Intervention, UCL, London, UK
| | - Dimitrios Anastasiou
- Wellcome/ESPRC Centre for Interventional Surgical Sciences (WEISS), University College London (UCL), London, UK
- Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, UCL, London, UK
| | - Freweini Tesfai
- The Griffin Institute, Northwick Park & St Marks’ Hospital, London, UK
- Wellcome/ESPRC Centre for Interventional Surgical Sciences (WEISS), University College London (UCL), London, UK
| | - Walaa Ghamrawi
- The Griffin Institute, Northwick Park & St Marks’ Hospital, London, UK
| | - Evangelos Mazomenos
- Wellcome/ESPRC Centre for Interventional Surgical Sciences (WEISS), University College London (UCL), London, UK
- Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, UCL, London, UK
| | - Nathan Curtis
- Department of General Surgey, Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Dorchester, UK
| | - Justin W Collins
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Research Department of Targeted Intervention, UCL, London, UK
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ashwin Sridhar
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Research Department of Targeted Intervention, UCL, London, UK
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - John Kelly
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Research Department of Targeted Intervention, UCL, London, UK
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Danail Stoyanov
- Wellcome/ESPRC Centre for Interventional Surgical Sciences (WEISS), University College London (UCL), London, UK
- Computer Science, UCL, London, UK
| | - Nader K Francis
- The Griffin Institute, Northwick Park & St Marks’ Hospital, London, UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Research Department of Targeted Intervention, UCL, London, UK
- Yeovil District Hospital, Somerset Foundation NHS Trust, Yeovil, Somerset, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Vaidya A, Aydin A, Ridgley J, Raison N, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Current Status of Technical Skills Assessment Tools in Surgery: A Systematic Review. J Surg Res 2020; 246:342-378. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2019] [Revised: 08/29/2019] [Accepted: 09/11/2019] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
|