Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34734305›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Augmented reality in laparoscopic liver resection evaluated on an ex-vivo animal model with pseudo-tumours.

Mourad Adballah, Yamid Espinel, Lilian Calvet, Bruno Pereira, Bertrand Le Roy, Adrien Bartoli, Emmanuel Buc

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Phantom study on surgical performance in augmented reality laparoscopy.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mourad AdballahInstitut Pascal, UMR6602, Endoscopy and Computer Vision Group, Faculté de Médecine, Bâtiment 3C, 28 place Henri Dunant, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Yamid EspinelInstitut Pascal, UMR6602, Endoscopy and Computer Vision Group, Faculté de Médecine, Bâtiment 3C, 28 place Henri Dunant, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Lilian CalvetInstitut Pascal, UMR6602, Endoscopy and Computer Vision Group, Faculté de Médecine, Bâtiment 3C, 28 place Henri Dunant, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Bruno PereiraBiostatistics Department (DRCI), University Hospital Clermont-Ferrand, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Bertrand Le RoyInstitut Pascal, UMR6602, Endoscopy and Computer Vision Group, Faculté de Médecine, Bâtiment 3C, 28 place Henri Dunant, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Adrien BartoliInstitut Pascal, UMR6602, Endoscopy and Computer Vision Group, Faculté de Médecine, Bâtiment 3C, 28 place Henri Dunant, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Emmanuel BucInstitut Pascal, UMR6602, Endoscopy and Computer Vision Group, Faculté de Médecine, Bâtiment 3C, 28 place Henri Dunant, 63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. ebuc@chu-clermontferrand.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-3559-166X
Institut Pascal · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Augmented RealityLaparoscopyLiver NeoplasmsAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalImaging, Three-DimensionalSheepAugmented realityDeformable 3D modelLaparoscopyLiverOverlayResection

Identifiers

PMID34734305
OpenAlexW3210183683

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.