Data analytics interrogates robotic surgical performance using a microsurgery-specific haptic device.

OBJECTIVES: With the increase in robot-assisted cases, recording the quantifiable dexterity of surgeons is essential for proficiency evaluations. The present study employs sensor-based kinematics and recorded surgeon experience for evaluating a new haptic device. METHODS: Thirty surgeons performed a task simulating micromanipulation with neuroArmPLUSHD and two commercially available hand-controllers. The surgical performance was evaluated based on subjective measures obtained from survey and objective features derived from the sensors. Statistical analyses were performed to assess the hand-controllers and regression analysis was used to identify the key features and develop a machine learning model for surgical skill assessment. FINDINGS: MANCOVA tests on objective features demonstrated significance (α = 0.05) for time (p = 0.02), errors (p = 0.01), distance (p = 0.03), clutch incidents (p = 0.03), and forces (p = 0.00). The majority of metrics were in favor of neuroArmPLUSHD. The surgeons found it smoother, more comfortable, less tiring, and easier to maneuver with more realistic force feedback. The ensemble machine learning model trained with 5-fold cross-validation showed an accuracy (SD) of 0.78 (0.15) in surgeon skill classification. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the importance of incorporating a superior haptic device in telerobotic surgery for standardization of surgical education and patient care.

Conflict of interest policies and disclosure requirements in neurosurgical journals.

OBJECTIVE: An increasing amount of funding in neurosurgery research comes from industry, which may create a conflict of interest (COI) and the potential to bias results. The reporting and handling of COIs have become difficult, particularly as explicit policies themselves and definitions thereof continue to vary between medical journals. In this study, the authors sought to evaluate the prevalence and comprehensiveness of COI policies among leading neurosurgical journals. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional study of publicly available online disclosure policies in the 20 highest-ranking neurosurgical journals, as determined by Google Scholar Metrics, in July 2016. RESULTS: Overall, 89.5% of the highest-impact neurosurgical journals included COI policy statements. Ten (53%) journals requested declaration of nonfinancial conflicts, while 2 journals specifically set a time period for COIs. Sixteen journals required declaration from the corresponding author, 13 from all authors, 6 from reviewers, and 5 from editors. Four journals were included in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) list of publications that follow the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (currently known as Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals). Five journal policies included COI declaration verification, management, or enforcement. The neurosurgery journals with more comprehensive COI policies were significantly more likely to have higher h5-indices (p = 0.003) and higher impact factors (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In 2016, the majority of, but not all, high-impact neurosurgical journals had publically available COI disclosure policies. Policy inclusiveness and comprehensiveness varied substantially across neurosurgical journals, but COI comprehensiveness was associated with other established markers of individual journals' favorability and influence, such as impact factor and h5-index.

Industry Financial Relationships in Neurosurgery in 2015: Analysis of the Sunshine Act Open Payments Database.

OBJECTIVE: The 2013 Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates that all U.S. drug and device manufacturers disclose payments to physicians. All payments are made available annually in the Open Payments Database (OPD). Our aim was to determine prevalence, magnitude, and nature of these payments to physicians performing neurologic surgery in 2015 and to discuss the role that financial conflicts of interest play in neurosurgery. METHODS: All records of industry financial relationships with physicians identified by the neurological surgery taxonomy code in 2015 were accessed via the OPD. Data were analyzed in terms of type and amounts of payments, companies making payments, and comparison with previous studies. RESULTS: In 2015, 83,690 payments (totaling $99,048,607) were made to 7613 physicians by 330 companies. Of these, 0.01% were >$1 million, and 73.2% were <$100. The mean payment ($13,010) was substantially greater than the median ($114). Royalties and licensing accounted for the largest monetary value of payments (74.2%) but only 1.7% of the total number. Food and beverage payments were the most commonly reported transaction (75%) but accounted for only 2.5% of total reported monetary value. Neurologic surgery had the second highest average total payment per physician of any specialty. CONCLUSIONS: The neurological surgery specialty receives substantial annual payments from industry in the United States. The overall value is driven by a small number of payments of high monetary value. The OPD provides a unique opportunity for increased transparency in industry-physician relationships facilitating disclosure of financial conflicts of interest.