Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31583466›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020

Formalizing video documentation of the Critical View of Safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a step towards artificial intelligence assistance to improve surgical safety.

Pietro Mascagni, Claudio Fiorillo, Takeshi Urade, Taha Emre, Tong Yu, Taiga Wakabayashi, Emanuele Felli, Silvana Perretta, Lee Swanstrom, Didier Mutter and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Pietro MascagniICube, University of Strasbourg, CNRS, IHU Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. p.mascagni@hotmail.it.ORCID 0000-0001-7288-3023
Claudio FiorilloFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Takeshi UradeIHU Strasbourg - Institut de Chirurgie Guidée par l'image, Strasbourg, France.
Taha EmreICube, University of Strasbourg, CNRS, IHU Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Tong YuICube, University of Strasbourg, CNRS, IHU Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Taiga WakabayashiIRCAD, Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.
Emanuele FelliDigestive and Endocrine Surgery, Nouvel Hopital Civil, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Silvana PerrettaIHU Strasbourg - Institut de Chirurgie Guidée par l'image, Strasbourg, France.
Lee SwanstromIHU Strasbourg - Institut de Chirurgie Guidée par l'image, Strasbourg, France.
Didier MutterIHU Strasbourg - Institut de Chirurgie Guidée par l'image, Strasbourg, France.
Jacques MarescauxIHU Strasbourg - Institut de Chirurgie Guidée par l'image, Strasbourg, France.
Patrick PessauxIHU Strasbourg - Institut de Chirurgie Guidée par l'image, Strasbourg, France.
Guido CostamagnaFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Nicolas PadoyICube, University of Strasbourg, CNRS, IHU Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Bernard DallemagneIHU Strasbourg - Institut de Chirurgie Guidée par l'image, Strasbourg, France.
Institut de Recherche contre les Cancers de l’Appareil Digestif · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITInstitut de Chirurgie Guidée par l'Image · FRHôpital Civil, Strasbourg · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), achievement of the Critical View of Safety (CVS) is commonly advocated to prevent bile duct injuries (BDI). However, BDI rates remain stable, probably due to inconsistent application or a poor understanding of CVS as well as unreliable reporting. Objective video reporting could serve for quality auditing and help generate consistent datasets for deep learning models aimed at intraoperative assistance. In this study, we develop and test a method to report CVS using videos.

methodLC videos performed at our institution were retrieved and the video segments starting 60 s prior to the division of cystic structures were edited. Two independent reviewers assessed CVS using an adaptation of the doublet view 6-point scale and a novel binary method in which each criterion is considered either achieved or not. Feasibility to assess CVS in the edited video clips and inter-rater agreements were evaluated.

resultsCVS was attempted in 78 out of the 100 LC videos retrieved. CVS was assessable in 100% of the 60-s video clips. After mediation, CVS was achieved in 32/78(41.03%). Kappa scores of inter-rater agreements using the doublet view versus the binary assessment were as follows: 0.54 versus 0.75 for CVS achievement, 0.45 versus 0.62 for the dissection of the hepatocystic triangle, 0.36 versus 0.77 for the exposure of the lower part of the cystic plate, and 0.48 versus 0.79 for the 2 structures connected to the gallbladder.

conclusionsThe present study is the first to formalize a reproducible method for objective video reporting of CVS in LC. Minute-long video clips provide information on CVS and binary assessment yields a higher inter-rater agreement than previously used methods. These results offer an easy-to-implement strategy for objective video reporting of CVS, which could be used for quality auditing, scientific communication, and development of deep learning models for intraoperative guidance.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicFemaleHumansMaleVideo RecordingBile duct injuryCritical View of SafetyLaparoscopic cholecystectomyObjective video reportingSurgical data scienceSurgical safety

Identifiers

PMID31583466
OpenAlexW2978826643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.