ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Computer-assisted 3D bowel length measurement for quantitative laparoscopy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- Comparison of two-dimensional high-definition, ultra high-definition and three-dimensional endovision systems: an ex-vivo randomised study.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Trial
- Development of an artificial intelligence based virtual tool for measuring distances during image-guided surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Ensuring privacy protection in the era of big laparoscopic video data: development and validation of an inside outside discrimination algorithm (IODA).Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Surgomics: personalized prediction of morbidity, mortality and long-term outcome in surgery using machine learning on multimodal data.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Comparison of Conventional Methods for Bowel Length Measurement in Laparoscopic Surgery to a Novel Computer-Assisted 3D Measurement System.Obesity surgery · 2021Article
- A learning robot for cognitive camera control in minimally invasive surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed at developing and evaluating a tool for computer-assisted 3D bowel length measurement (BMS) to improve objective measurement in minimally invasive surgery. Standardization and quality of surgery as well as its documentation are currently limited by lack of objective intraoperative measurements. To solve this problem, we developed BMS as a clinical application of Quantitative Laparoscopy (QL).
methodsBMS processes images from a conventional 3D laparoscope. Computer vision algorithms are used to measure the distance between laparoscopic instruments along a 3D reconstruction of the bowel surface. Preclinical evaluation was performed in phantom, ex vivo porcine, and in vivo porcine models. A bowel length of 70 cm was measured with BMS and compared to a manually obtained ground truth. Afterwards 70 cm of bowel (ground truth) was measured and compared to BMS.
resultsGround truth was 66.1 ± 2.7 cm (relative error + 5.8%) in phantom, 65.8 ± 2.5 cm (relative error + 6.4%) in ex vivo, and 67.5 ± 6.6 cm (relative error + 3.7%) in in vivo porcine evaluation when 70 cm was measured with BMS. Using 70 cm of bowel, BMS measured 75.0 ± 2.9 cm (relative error + 7.2%) in phantom and 74.4 ± 2.8 cm (relative error + 6.3%) in ex vivo porcine evaluation. After thorough preclinical evaluation, BMS was successfully used in a patient undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity.
conclusionsQL using BMS was shown to be feasible and was successfully translated from studies on phantom, ex vivo, and in vivo porcine bowel to a clinical feasibility study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29508142What 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.