ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Augmented reality in laparoscopic liver resection evaluated on an ex-vivo animal model with pseudo-tumours.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Augmented Reality Implementation in Minimally Invasive Surgery for Future Application in Pulmonary Surgery: A Systematic Review.Surgical innovation · 2024Pooled it
- The Advances in Computer Vision That Are Enabling More Autonomous Actions in Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Pooled it
- Assessing augmented reality displays in laparoscopic liver surgery - a clinical experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Improved tumour localisation during minimally invasive liver surgery using augmented reality: a retrospective study with propensity score analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Application of laparoscopic intraoperative ultrasound in laparoscopic hepatic resection for liver tumor.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- A new technology for a novel clinical approach in a dog with a complex vascular anomaly: the "extended reality".Veterinary research communications · 2025Article
- Nomogram for predicting early recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma with narrow resection margin.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The value of Augmented Reality in surgery - A usability study on laparoscopic liver surgery.Medical image analysis · 2023Article
- Phantom study on surgical performance in augmented reality laparoscopy.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2023Article
- Minimally invasive and invasive liver surgery based on augmented reality training: a review of the literature.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Review
- State of the Art and Future Prospects of Virtual and Augmented Reality in Veterinary Medicine: A Systematic Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Review
- Augmented Reality-Based Visual Cue for Guiding Central Catheter Insertion in Pediatric Oncologic Patients.World journal of surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the performance of our augmented reality (AR) software (Hepataug) during laparoscopic resection of liver tumours and compare it to standard ultrasonography (US). MATERIALS AND
methodsNinety pseudo-tumours ranging from 10 to 20 mm were created in sheep cadaveric livers by injection of alginate. CT-scans were then performed and 3D models reconstructed using a medical image segmentation software (MITK). The livers were placed in a pelvi-trainer on an inclined plane, approximately perpendicular to the laparoscope. The aim was to obtain free resection margins, as close as possible to 1 cm. Laparoscopic resection was performed using US alone (n = 30, US group), AR alone (n = 30, AR group) and both US and AR (n = 30, ARUS group). R0 resection, maximal margins, minimal margins and mean margins were assessed after histopathologic examination, adjusted to the tumour depth and to a liver zone-wise difficulty level.
resultsThe minimal margins were not different between the three groups (8.8, 8.0 and 6.9 mm in the US, AR and ARUS groups, respectively). The maximal margins were larger in the US group compared to the AR and ARUS groups after adjustment on depth and zone difficulty (21 vs. 18 mm, p = 0.001 and 21 vs. 19.5 mm, p = 0.037, respectively). The mean margins, which reflect the variability of the measurements, were larger in the US group than in the ARUS group after adjustment on depth and zone difficulty (15.2 vs. 12.8 mm, p < 0.001). When considering only the most difficult zone (difficulty 3), there were more R1/R2 resections in the US group than in the AR + ARUS group (50% vs. 21%, p = 0.019).
conclusionLaparoscopic liver resection using AR seems to provide more accurate resection margins with less variability than the gold standard US navigation, particularly in difficult to access liver zones with deep tumours.
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.