A Leap Motion Controller-based system discriminated expert from novice surgical knot-tying performance with 100% accuracy, supporting construct validity for objective dexterity assessment¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2022: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? In a construct validity study with 11 participants performing surgical knot tying and manual object transfer, the LMC-based system discriminated between expert and novice performances with 100% accuracy. → Alvarez-Lopez F 2019
Evidence¶
Alvarez-Lopez F 2019¶
Alvarez-Lopez F, Maina MF, Saigí-Rubió F. (2019). Use of Commercial Off-The-Shelf Devices for the Detection of Manual Gestures in Surgery: Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/11925
q2 · i? · review · r3
Construct validity study (study [127]) evaluating the LMC for objective measurement of surgical dexterity across experience levels, with 11 participants performing surgical knot tying and manual transfer of objects. The review reports "100% accuracy in discriminating between expert and novice performances".
"The study showed 100% accuracy in discriminating between expert and novice performances."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Computer vision and machine learning enable objective, automated surgical skill assessment — a broader claim this one bears on
- Kinematic assessment systems for laparoscopic cholecystectomy are weakly validated, restricted to small datasets, and capture only a narrow component of operative competence — related
- Microsoft Kinect and the Leap Motion Controller were the most widely used COTS gesture-detection devices in surgical research, appearing in 50% and 36% of the 86 included studies respectively — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.