ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Comparison of manual and semi-automatic registration in augmented reality image-guided liver surgery: a clinical feasibility study.
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 34 papers, 3 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Use of Augmented Reality for Navigation in Minimally Invasive Abdominal and Thoracic Soft-Tissue Surgery: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Augmented Reality Implementation in Minimally Invasive Surgery for Future Application in Pulmonary Surgery: A Systematic Review.Surgical innovation · 2024Pooled it
- More than meets the eye: Augmented reality in surgical oncology.Journal of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Warm-started reinforcement learning for iterative 3D/2D liver registration.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic liver point cloud registration via hyperbolic-topology interaction.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based renal artery segmentation and angle estimation for registration of endoscopic images and 3D models in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Toward augmented reality in laparoscopic liver surgery using electromagnetic tracking: a clinical feasibility study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Manual Registration in AR-Assisted Surgical Navigation: A Comparative Evaluation.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Assessing augmented reality displays in laparoscopic liver surgery - a clinical experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Leveraging augmented reality for dynamic guidance in 3-dimensional laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery: a prospective case series study.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2025Article
- Deep hashing for global registration of preoperative CT and video images for laparoscopic liver surgery.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
- Preoperative and intraoperative laparoscopic liver surface registration using deep graph matching of representative overlapping points.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
- The Application of Augmented Reality Technology in Perioperative Visual Guidance: Technological Advances and Innovation Challenges.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Registration accuracy comparing different rendering techniques on local vs external virtual 3D liver model reconstruction for vascular landmark setting by intraoperative ultrasound in augmented reality navigated liver resection.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy using augmented reality navigation plus ICG fluorescence imaging for hepatolithiasis: a retrospective single-arm cohort study (with video).Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Can engineers represent surgeons in usability studies? Comparison of results from evaluating augmented reality guidance for laparoscopic surgery.Computers & graphics · 2024Article
- A Vascular Feature Detection and Matching Method Based on Dual-Branch Fusion and Structure Enhancement.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The value of Augmented Reality in surgery - A usability study on laparoscopic liver surgery.Medical image analysis · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic right hemi-hepatectomy plus total caudate lobectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma via anterior approach with augmented reality navigation: a feasibility study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Image-to-Patient Registration in Computer-Assisted Surgery of Head and Neck: State-of-the-Art, Perspectives, and Challenges.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe laparoscopic approach to liver resection may reduce morbidity and hospital stay. However, uptake has been slow due to concerns about patient safety and oncological radicality. Image guidance systems may improve patient safety by enabling 3D visualisation of critical intra- and extrahepatic structures. Current systems suffer from non-intuitive visualisation and a complicated setup process. A novel image guidance system (SmartLiver), offering augmented reality visualisation and semi-automatic registration has been developed to address these issues. A clinical feasibility study evaluated the performance and usability of SmartLiver with either manual or semi-automatic registration.
methodsIntraoperative image guidance data were recorded and analysed in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection or cancer staging. Stereoscopic surface reconstruction and iterative closest point matching facilitated semi-automatic registration. The primary endpoint was defined as successful registration as determined by the operating surgeon. Secondary endpoints were system usability as assessed by a surgeon questionnaire and comparison of manual vs. semi-automatic registration accuracy. Since SmartLiver is still in development no attempt was made to evaluate its impact on perioperative outcomes.
resultsThe primary endpoint was achieved in 16 out of 18 patients. Initially semi-automatic registration failed because the IGS could not distinguish the liver surface from surrounding structures. Implementation of a deep learning algorithm enabled the IGS to overcome this issue and facilitate semi-automatic registration. Mean registration accuracy was 10.9 ± 4.2 mm (manual) vs. 13.9 ± 4.4 mm (semi-automatic) (Mean difference - 3 mm; p = 0.158). Surgeon feedback was positive about IGS handling and improved intraoperative orientation but also highlighted the need for a simpler setup process and better integration with laparoscopic ultrasound.
conclusionThe technical feasibility of using SmartLiver intraoperatively has been demonstrated. With further improvements semi-automatic registration may enhance user friendliness and workflow of SmartLiver. Manual and semi-automatic registration accuracy were comparable but evaluation on a larger patient cohort is required to confirm these findings.
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.