Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35643827›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2022

Surgical reporting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy based on phase annotation by a convolutional neural network (CNN) and the phenomenon of phase flickering: a proof of concept.

M Berlet, T Vogel, D Ostler, T Czempiel, M Kähler, S Brunner, H Feussner, D Wilhelm, M Kranzfelder

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Toward robust surgical phase recognition via deep ensemble learning.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M BerletDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. maximilian.berlet@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4652-0904
T VogelDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
D OstlerDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
T CzempielChair for Computer Aided Medical Procedures and Augmented Reality (CAMP), Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
M KählerResearch Group Minimally-Invasive Therapy and Intervention (MITI), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
S BrunnerResearch Group Minimally-Invasive Therapy and Intervention (MITI), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
H FeussnerDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
D WilhelmDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
M KranzfelderDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
TUM Klinikum · DETechnical University of Munich · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSurgical documentation is an important yet time-consuming necessity in clinical routine. Beside its core function to transmit information about a surgery to other medical professionals, the surgical report has gained even more significance in terms of information extraction for scientific, administrative and judicial application. A possible basis for computer aided reporting is phase detection by convolutional neural networks (CNN). In this article we propose a workflow to generate operative notes based on the output of the TeCNO CNN.

methodsVideo recordings of 15 cholecystectomies were used for inference. The annotation of TeCNO was compared to that of an expert surgeon (HE) and the algorithm based annotation of a scientist (HA). The CNN output then was used to identify aberrance from standard course as basis for the final report. Moreover, we assessed the phenomenon of 'phase flickering' as clusters of incorrectly labeled frames and evaluated its usability.

resultsThe accordance of the HE and CNN was 79.7% and that of HA and CNN 87.0%. 'Phase flickering' indicated an aberrant course with AUCs of 0.91 and 0.89 in ROC analysis regarding number and extend of concerned frames. Finally, we created operative notes based on a standard text, deviation alerts, and manual completion by the surgeon.

conclusionComputer-aided documentation is a noteworthy use case for phase recognition in standardized surgery. The analysis of phase flickering in a CNN's annotation has the potential of retrieving more information about the course of a particular procedure to complement an automated report.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicAlgorithmsHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalNeural Networks, ComputerWorkflowComputer aided operative notesLaparoscopic cholecystectomyMachine learningSurgical documentation

Identifiers

PMID35643827
PMCPMC9515052
OpenAlexW4281612613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.