Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35024773›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2022

Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence-Based Intraoperative Guidance Tools for Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery.

Rogerio Garcia Nespolo, Darvin Yi, Emily Cole, Nita Valikodath, Cristian Luciano, Yannek I Leiderman

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Artificial Intelligence in Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review.Translational vision science & technology · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Advances in cataract surgery: is a new era on the horizon?Current opinion in ophthalmology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rogerio Garcia NespoloDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago.
Darvin YiDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago.
Emily ColeDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago.
Nita ValikodathDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago.
Cristian LucianoRichard and Loan Hill Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago.
Yannek I LeidermanDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago.
University of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceComplications that arise from phacoemulsification procedures can lead to worse visual outcomes. Real-time image processing with artificial intelligence tools can extract data to deliver surgical guidance, potentially enhancing the surgical environment.

objectiveTo evaluate the ability of a deep neural network to track the pupil, identify the surgical phase, and activate specific computer vision tools to aid the surgeon during phacoemulsification cataract surgery by providing visual feedback in real time. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsThis cross-sectional study evaluated deidentified surgical videos of phacoemulsification cataract operations performed by faculty and trainee surgeons in a university-based ophthalmology department between July 1, 2020, and January 1, 2021, in a population-based cohort of patients. EXPOSURES: A region-based convolutional neural network was used to receive frames from the video source and, in real time, locate the pupil and in parallel identify the surgical phase being performed. Computer vision-based algorithms were applied according to the phase identified, providing visual feedback to the surgeon. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes were area under the receiver operator characteristic curve and area under the precision-recall curve for surgical phase classification and Dice score (harmonic mean of the precision and recall [sensitivity]) for detection of the pupil boundary. Network performance was assessed as video output in frames per second. A usability survey was administered to volunteer cataract surgeons previously unfamiliar with the platform.

resultsThe region-based convolutional neural network model achieved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of 0.996 for capsulorhexis, 0.972 for phacoemulsification, 0.997 for cortex removal, and 0.880 for idle phase recognition. The final algorithm reached a Dice score of 90.23% for pupil segmentation and a mean (SD) processing speed of 97 (34) frames per second. Among the 11 cataract surgeons surveyed, 8 (72%) were mostly or extremely likely to use the current platform during surgery for complex cataract. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A computer vision approach using deep neural networks was able to pupil track, identify the surgical phase being executed, and activate surgical guidance tools. These results suggest that an artificial intelligence-based surgical guidance platform has the potential to enhance the surgeon experience in phacoemulsification cataract surgery. This proof-of-concept investigation suggests that a pipeline from a surgical microscope could be integrated with neural networks and computer vision tools to provide surgical guidance in real time.

Indexed as

CataractOphthalmologyPhacoemulsificationArtificial IntelligenceCross-Sectional StudiesHumans

Identifiers

PMID35024773
PMCPMC8855235
OpenAlexW4206357547

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.