ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2021
Laparoscopic augmented reality registration for oncological resection site repair.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- The Application of Augmented Reality Technology in Perioperative Visual Guidance: Technological Advances and Innovation Challenges.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Renal surface reconstruction and segmentation for image-guided surgical navigation of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.Biomedical engineering letters · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeResection site repair during laparoscopic oncological surgery (e.g. laparoscopic partial nephrectomy) poses some unique challenges and opportunities for augmented reality (AR) navigation support. This work introduces an AR registration workflow that addresses the time pressure that is present during resection site repair.
methodsWe propose a two-step registration process: the AR content is registered as accurately as possible prior to the tumour resection (the primary registration). This accurate registration is used to apply artificial fiducials to the physical organ and the virtual model. After the resection, these fiducials can be used for rapid re-registration (the secondary registration). We tested this pipeline in a simulated-use study with [Formula: see text] participants. We compared the registration accuracy and speed for our method and for landmark-based registration as a reference.
resultsAcquisition of and, thereby, registration with the artificial fiducials were significantly faster than the initial use of anatomical landmarks. Our method also had a trend to be more accurate in cases in which the primary registration was successful. The accuracy loss between the elaborate primary registration and the rapid secondary registration could be quantified with a mean target registration error increase of 2.35 mm.
conclusionThis work introduces a registration pipeline for AR navigation support during laparoscopic resection site repair and provides a successful proof-of-concept evaluation thereof. Our results indicate that the concept is better suited than landmark-based registration during this phase, but further work is required to demonstrate clinical suitability and applicability.
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.