Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35927354›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2022

Computer-aided anatomy recognition in intrathoracic and -abdominal surgery: a systematic review.

R B den Boer, C de Jongh, W T E Huijbers, T J M Jaspers, J P W Pluim, R van Hillegersberg, M Van Eijnatten, J P Ruurda

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

8 authors.

R B den BoerDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
C de JonghDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
W T E HuijbersDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
T J M JaspersDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Groene Loper 3, 5612 AE, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
J P W PluimDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Groene Loper 3, 5612 AE, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
R van HillegersbergDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M Van EijnattenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Groene Loper 3, 5612 AE, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
J P RuurdaDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. p.ruurda@umcutrecht.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive surgery is complex and associated with substantial learning curves. Computer-aided anatomy recognition, such as artificial intelligence-based algorithms, may improve anatomical orientation, prevent tissue injury, and improve learning curves. The study objective was to provide a comprehensive overview of current literature on the accuracy of anatomy recognition algorithms in intrathoracic and -abdominal surgery.

methodsThis systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Pubmed, Embase, and IEEE Xplore were searched for original studies up until January 2022 on computer-aided anatomy recognition, without requiring intraoperative imaging or calibration equipment. Extracted features included surgical procedure, study population and design, algorithm type, pre-training methods, pre- and post-processing methods, data augmentation, anatomy annotation, training data, testing data, model validation strategy, goal of the algorithm, target anatomical structure, accuracy, and inference time.

resultsAfter full-text screening, 23 out of 7124 articles were included. Included studies showed a wide diversity, with six possible recognition tasks in 15 different surgical procedures, and 14 different accuracy measures used. Risk of bias in the included studies was high, especially regarding patient selection and annotation of the reference standard. Dice and intersection over union (IoU) scores of the algorithms ranged from 0.50 to 0.98 and from 74 to 98%, respectively, for various anatomy recognition tasks. High-accuracy algorithms were typically trained using larger datasets annotated by expert surgeons and focused on less-complex anatomy. Some of the high-accuracy algorithms were developed using pre-training and data augmentation.

conclusionsThe accuracy of included anatomy recognition algorithms varied substantially, ranging from moderate to good. Solid comparison between algorithms was complicated by the wide variety of applied methodology, target anatomical structures, and reported accuracy measures. Computer-aided intraoperative anatomy recognition is an upcoming research discipline, but still at its infancy. Larger datasets and methodological guidelines are required to improve accuracy and clinical applicability in future research.

trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42021264226.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceComputersDiagnostic ImagingHumansAnatomy recognitionArtificial intelligenceComputer visionMinimally invasive surgery

Identifiers

PMID35927354
PMCPMC9652273

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.