Measuring hand movement for suturing skill assessment: A simulation-based study.

BACKGROUND: To maximize patient safety, surgical skills education is increasingly adopting simulation-based curricula for formative skills assessment and training. However, many standardized assessment tools rely on human raters for performance assessment, which is resource-intensive and subjective. Simulators that provide automated and objective metrics from sensor data can address this limitation. We present an instrumented bench suturing simulator, patterned after the clock face radial suturing model from the Fundamentals of Vascular Surgery, for automated and objective assessment of open suturing skills. METHODS: For this study, 97 participants (35 attending surgeons, 32 residents, and 30 novices) were recruited at national vascular conferences. Automated hand motion metrics, especially focusing on rotational motion analysis, were developed from the inertial measurement unit attached to participants' hands, and the proposed suite of metrics was used to differentiate between the skill levels of the 3 groups. RESULTS: Attendings' and residents' performances were found to be significantly different from novices for all metrics. Moreover, most of our novel metrics could successfully distinguish between finer skill differences between attending and resident groups. In contrast, traditional operative skill metrics, such as time and path length, were unable to distinguish attendings from residents. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence for the effectiveness of rotational motion analysis in assessing suturing skills. The suite of inertial measurement unit-based hand motion metrics introduced in this study allows for the incorporation of hand movement data for suturing skill assessment.

Comparison of Complications and Cost for Transfemoral Versus Transcarotid Stenting of Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Options for endovascular treatment of carotid artery disease have been developed to compliment with carotid endarterectomy, transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) and a hybrid approach with transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). We sought to capture endpoints outside of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and death involved with each procedure at our institution as well as evaluate cost. METHODS: Carotid stent procedures performed from 2014 to 2020 at our institution underwent comparative analysis based upon access site and type of stent procedure performed, TFCAS versus TCAR. Procedural details and outcomes were captured prospectively and included in the National Cardiovascular Data Peripheral Vascular Intervention Registry (NCDR-PVI). Further retrospective review was performed to evaluate endpoints beyond stroke, MI, and death. Total in-hospital cost, including administrative, capital and utilities (fixed cost), and labor and supplies (variable cost) were also evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven patients were reviewed. Seventy-seven were treated with TFCAS and 60 with TCAR. The mean age was 74 years, predominantly male (68%) and Caucasian (90%). Patients undergoing TFCAS were more likely to be symptomatic compared to those receiving TCAR (81.8% vs. 50.0%, P = <0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in event rates, including mortality, recurrent cerebrovascular accident / transient ischemic attack, or bleeding. Complications not captured in the NCDR-PVI database were more frequent in the TCAR group (21.7% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.004) and included pneumothorax (n = 2), neck hematoma (n = 8), and common carotid artery stenosis or injury (n = 3). Rates of complications in the TFCAS group (n = 4) were lower and limited to groin hematoma (n = 2), central retinal artery occlusion causing vision loss and a case of postoperative dysphagia. Geographic miss of initial stent placement was identified in 15.0% of TCAR patients and 2.6% (P = 0.008) of TFCAS patients. Restenosis rates on duplex ultrasound were similar between the two groups (14.6% of patients) and were not associated with symptoms. The mean follow-up interval was similar for both groups of 31.8 months for TCAR and 30.7 months for TFCAS (P = 0.797). There was a statistically significant difference in total cost with TCAR being more expensive ($22,315 vs. $11,001) driven by direct costs that included devices, imaging, and extended length of stay in the TCAR group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between stroke free survival (91.1% vs. 88.6%, P = 0.69) and mortality (78.1% vs. 85.2%, P = 0.677) at 3 years follow-up between TCAR and TFCAS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both TFCAS and TCAR provide similar 3-year stroke and mortality risk/benefit and are distinctly different procedures. Both should be evaluated independently with analysis of variables beyond stroke, death, and MI. TFCAS is more cost-effective than TCAR in this single institution study.