Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Assesses automated surgical step recognition for enhancing training quality in varied centers, suggesting significant improvements in accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: Accelerating surgical training and improving patient safety requires automated assessment that delivers actionable, step-specific feedback. Standardized box-trainer exercises, with their inherently comparable action steps, offer a natural route towards this goal. Reliable detection of surgical steps is a necessary prerequisite, yet it remains largely unexplored for box-trainer exercises. Crucially, practical deployment requires methods that are invariant to center-domains, i.e. platform, instrument, and camera differences. METHODS: We (i) formalize surgical steps for three box-trainer exercises and publicly release the first Multi-center Surgical Training dataset MiST-STEP with step annotations; (ii) benchmark cross-center step recognition with a prevalent two-stage pipeline; (iii) study two self-supervised pretraining schemes-MoCo v2 and a lightweight temporal-order task; and (iv) analyze three finetuning strategies while varying the amount of labeled target center data. RESULTS: Using MiST-STEP (i), we find: (ii) single-center models lose up to 48 percentage points (pp) in macro-F1 on unseen centers; (iii) temporal-order pretraining outperforms MoCo v2 and cuts this deficit by two-thirds; and (iv) finetuning with just two labeled videos per target center removes most of the remaining gap. CONCLUSION: Our study provides the first comprehensive, cross-center benchmark for step recognition in surgical training and shows that the benefit of self-supervision is highly task-dependent. Our dataset is available at https://gitlab.cc-asp.fraunhofer.de/imte-public/liros/mist. SIGNIFICANCE: Center-robust step recognition in box-trainer exercises is essential towards the development of automated feedback systems that aim to standardize training quality and ultimately improve patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wolf et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: