ArticleThe British journal of surgery2012
Real-time computed tomography-based augmented reality for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery navigation.
Article in The British journal of surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Review of Cognitive Support Systems in the Operating Room.Surgical innovation · 2024Pooled it
- Applying Modern Virtual and Augmented Reality Technologies to Medical Images and Models.Journal of digital imaging · 2019Review
- Computer vision and augmented reality in gastrointestinal endoscopy.Gastroenterology report · 2015Review
- On the suitability of Thiel cadavers for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): surgical training, feasibility studies, and anatomical education.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Development of minimally invasive techniques for management of medically-complicated obesity.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for intra-abdominal emergency conditions.The British journal of surgery · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNatural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is technically challenging owing to endoscopic short-sighted visualization, excessive scope flexibility and lack of adequate instrumentation. Augmented reality may overcome these difficulties. This study tested whether an image registration system for NOTES procedures (IR-NOTES) can facilitate navigation.
methodsIn three human cadavers 15 intra-abdominal organs were targeted endoscopically with and without IR-NOTES via both transgastric and transcolonic routes, by three endoscopists with different levels of expertise. Ease of navigation was evaluated objectively by kinematic analysis, and navigation complexity was determined by creating an organ access complexity score based on the same data.
resultsWithout IR-NOTES, 21 (11·7 per cent) of 180 targets were not reached (expert endoscopist 3, advanced 7, intermediate 11), compared with one (1 per cent) of 90 with IR-NOTES (intermediate endoscopist) (P = 0·002). Endoscope movements were significantly less complex in eight of the 15 listed organs when using IR-NOTES. The most complex areas to access were the pelvis and left upper quadrant, independently of the access route. The most difficult organs to access were the spleen (5 failed attempts; 3 of 7 kinematic variables significantly improved) and rectum (4 failed attempts; 5 of 7 kinematic variables significantly improved). The time needed to access the rectum through a transgastric approach was 206·3 s without and 54·9 s with IR-NOTES (P = 0·027).
conclusionThe IR-NOTES system enhanced both navigation efficacy and ease of intra-abdominal NOTES exploration for operators of all levels. The system rendered some organs accessible to non-expert operators, thereby reducing one impediment to NOTES procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.