Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34231066›Full record

Observational studySurgical endoscopy2022

Artificial intelligence-based automated laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgical phase recognition and analysis.

Ke Cheng, Jiaying You, Shangdi Wu, Zixin Chen, Zijian Zhou, Jingye Guan, Bing Peng, Xin Wang

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Ke Cheng *West China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Jiaying You *West China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Shangdi WuWest China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Zixin ChenWest China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Zijian ZhouWest China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Jingye GuanChengDu Withai Innovations Technology Company, Chengdu, China.
Bing PengWest China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. pengbing84@hotmail.com.
Xin WangWest China School of Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. wangxin@withai.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence and computer vision have revolutionized laparoscopic surgical video analysis. However, there is no multi-center study focused on deep learning-based laparoscopic cholecystectomy phases recognizing. This work aims to apply artificial intelligence in recognizing and analyzing phases in laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos from multiple centers.

methodsThis observational cohort-study included 163 laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos collected from four medical centers. Videos were labeled by surgeons and a deep-learning model was developed based on 90 videos. Thereafter, the performance of the model was tested in additional ten videos by comparing it with the annotated ground truth of the surgeon. Deep-learning models were trained to identify laparoscopic cholecystectomy phases. The performance of models was measured using precision, recall, F1 score, and overall accuracy. With a high overall accuracy of the model, additional 63 videos as an analysis set were analyzed by the model to identify different phases.

resultsMean concordance correlation coefficient for annotations of the surgeons across all operative phases was 92.38%. Also, the overall phase recognition accuracy of laparoscopic cholecystectomy by the model was 91.05%. In the analysis set, there was an average surgery time of 2195 ± 896 s, with a huge individual variance of different surgical phases. Notably, laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis cases had prolonged overall durations, and the surgeon would spend more time in mobilizing the hepatocystic triangle phase.

conclusionA deep-learning model based on multiple centers data can identify phases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with a high degree of accuracy. With continued refinements, artificial intelligence could be utilized in huge data surgery analysis to achieve clinically relevant future applications.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicHumansArtificial intelligenceLaparoscopic cholecystectomySurgical phase recognition

Identifiers

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.