ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017
Augmented reality in gynecologic surgery: evaluation of potential benefits for myomectomy in an experimental uterine model.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in the operating room: A systematic review of AI models for surgical phase, instruments and anatomical structure identification.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- Augmented reality for basic skills training in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- The Role of Augmented Reality in Surgical Training: A Systematic Review.Surgical innovation · 2023Pooled it
- The Advances in Computer Vision That Are Enabling More Autonomous Actions in Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Pooled it
- Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality, Computer Vision, and Three-Dimensional Modeling in Fertility-Preserving Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery: A Scoping Review with Narrative Synthesis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- See more, treat early, conceive sooner: Outpatient hysteroscopy in modern fertility care.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence for instance segmentation of MRI: advancing efficiency and safety in laparoscopic myomectomy of broad ligament fibroids.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Theoretical foundations and implications of augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality for immersive learning in health professions education.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2024Article
- Recent advances in computerized imaging and its vital roles in liver disease diagnosis, preoperative planning, and interventional liver surgery: A review.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Review
- Article
- The Role of Augmented Reality in the Next Phase of Surgical Education.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- SERV-CT: A disparity dataset from cone-beam CT for validation of endoscopic 3D reconstruction.Medical image analysis · 2022Article
- SurgAI: deep learning for computerized laparoscopic image understanding in gynaecology.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Augmented reality in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: development, evaluation of accuracy and clinical relevance of a device useful to identify ureters during surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Augmented reality in a tumor resection model.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAugmented Reality (AR) is a technology that can allow a surgeon to see subsurface structures. This works by overlaying information from another modality, such as MRI and fusing it in real time with the endoscopic images. AR has never been developed for a very mobile organ like the uterus and has never been performed for gynecology. Myomas are not always easy to localize in laparoscopic surgery when they do not significantly change the surface of the uterus, or are at multiple locations.
objectiveTo study the accuracy of myoma localization using a new AR system compared to MRI-only localization.
methodsTen residents were asked to localize six myomas (on a uterine model into a laparoscopic box) when either using AR or in conditions that simulate a standard method (only the MRI was available). Myomas were randomly divided in two groups: the control group (MRI only, AR not activated) and the AR group (AR activated). Software was used to automatically measure the distance between the point of contact on the uterine surface and the myoma. We compared these distances to the true shortest distance to obtain accuracy measures. The time taken to perform the task was measured, and an assessment of the complexity was performed.
resultsThe mean accuracy in the control group was 16.80 mm [0.1-52.2] versus 0.64 mm [0.01-4.71] with AR. In the control group, the mean time to perform the task was 18.68 [6.4-47.1] s compared to 19.6 [3.9-77.5] s with AR. The mean score of difficulty (evaluated for each myoma) was 2.36 [1-4] versus 0.87 [0-4], respectively, for the control and the AR group. DISCUSSION: We developed an AR system for a very mobile organ. This is the first user study to quantitatively evaluate an AR system for improving a surgical task. In our model, AR improves localization accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27129565What 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.