Journal of robotic surgery · 2026
Development and validation of objective performance metrics for robot-assisted basic surgical skills in a simulated anastomosis task using a single-port robotic system.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beatrici Edoardo, Santarelli Valerio, Guidotti Alessio, Pepillo Francesco, de Angelis Mario, Barretta Attilio, Cei Francesco, Frego Nicola, Paciotti Marco, Vanderstraeten Eva, Van Herzeele Isabelle, Puliatti Stefano, De Naeyer Geert, Farinha Rui, De Groote Ruben, Hemal Sij, Wiklund Peter, Crivellaro Simone, Challacombe Ben, Rashidian Niki, Mottrie Alexandre
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The chicken anastomosis task is a widely adopted model for training robotic suturing and knot-tying. Aim of this study was to develop and validate objective performance metrics for this task on the Single-Port (SP) robotic platform and to establish a proficiency benchmark for training and assessment.
METHODS: Seven experts in robotic surgery training and Proficiency Based Progression (PBP) developed the metrics for the SP chicken anastomosis task. The proposed metrics were refined among a panel of n = 14 participants with significant experience in PBP and/or robotics and/or the SP system, through a modified Delphi process. Construct validity was assessed by comparing recorded performances of n = 12 expert ( ≥100 SP RARPs) and n = 12 novice surgeons, blindly scored by two reviewers. Proficiency benchmarks were established based on performance distribution.
RESULTS: Delphi consensus achieved 100% agreement on the proposed performance metrics (n = 5 steps, n = 20 errors, n = 1 failure to progress and n = 4 critical errors [CE]). Novices were twice more likely to commit a CE (n = 6 vs. n = 3). Among participants who completed the task without CEs, novices required significantly longer completion times (mean 25.3 min, 95%CI 18.0-32.7 vs. 11.2 min, 95%CI 8.5-13.9; p = 0.003) and committed a significantly higher mean number of errors (12.3, 95%CI 8.6-16.1 vs. 8.1, 95%CI 6.6-9.6, p = 0.033). Calculated Inter-Rater Reliability (IRR: agreements/agreements+disagreements) was 0.96. Proficiency benchmarks were defined as: absence of CEs and < 10 errors.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed metrics showed robust construct validity and reliability, and support PBP training and assessment for the SP platform. The proposed benchmark, as well as its clinical impact, requires confirmation and prospective evaluation.
METHODS: Seven experts in robotic surgery training and Proficiency Based Progression (PBP) developed the metrics for the SP chicken anastomosis task. The proposed metrics were refined among a panel of n = 14 participants with significant experience in PBP and/or robotics and/or the SP system, through a modified Delphi process. Construct validity was assessed by comparing recorded performances of n = 12 expert ( ≥100 SP RARPs) and n = 12 novice surgeons, blindly scored by two reviewers. Proficiency benchmarks were established based on performance distribution.
RESULTS: Delphi consensus achieved 100% agreement on the proposed performance metrics (n = 5 steps, n = 20 errors, n = 1 failure to progress and n = 4 critical errors [CE]). Novices were twice more likely to commit a CE (n = 6 vs. n = 3). Among participants who completed the task without CEs, novices required significantly longer completion times (mean 25.3 min, 95%CI 18.0-32.7 vs. 11.2 min, 95%CI 8.5-13.9; p = 0.003) and committed a significantly higher mean number of errors (12.3, 95%CI 8.6-16.1 vs. 8.1, 95%CI 6.6-9.6, p = 0.033). Calculated Inter-Rater Reliability (IRR: agreements/agreements+disagreements) was 0.96. Proficiency benchmarks were defined as: absence of CEs and < 10 errors.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed metrics showed robust construct validity and reliability, and support PBP training and assessment for the SP platform. The proposed benchmark, as well as its clinical impact, requires confirmation and prospective evaluation.