Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37157035›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2023

A systematic review of annotation for surgical process model analysis in minimally invasive surgery based on video.

Krystel Nyangoh Timoh, Arnaud Huaulme, Kevin Cleary, Myra A Zaheer, Vincent Lavoué, Dan Donoho, Pierre Jannin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. 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. Artificial Intelligence in Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review.Translational vision science & technology · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Decentralized, privacy-preserving surgical video analysis with Swarm Learning.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  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

7 authors.

Krystel Nyangoh TimohDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics and Human Reproduction, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France. krystel.NYANGOH.TIMOH@chu-rennes.fr.ORCID 0000-0003-4751-9080
Arnaud HuaulmeINSERM, LTSI - UMR 1099, University Rennes 1, Rennes, France.
Kevin ClearySheikh Zayed Institute for Pediatric Surgical Innovation, Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC, 20010, USA.
Myra A ZaheerGeorge Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
Vincent LavouéDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics and Human Reproduction, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France.
Dan DonohoDivision of Neurosurgery, Center for Neuroscience, Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC, 20010, USA.
Pierre JanninINSERM, LTSI - UMR 1099, University Rennes 1, Rennes, France.

Funding

Video Analysis of Neurosurgical Technical Performance and Adverse EventsK23EB034110 · NIBIB · CHILDREN'S RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI DONOHO, DANIEL A. · 2022 to 2025
$640k
NIBIB NIH HHS K23 EB034110
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnnotated data are foundational to applications of supervised machine learning. However, there seems to be a lack of common language used in the field of surgical data science. The aim of this study is to review the process of annotation and semantics used in the creation of SPM for minimally invasive surgery videos.

methodsFor this systematic review, we reviewed articles indexed in the MEDLINE database from January 2000 until March 2022. We selected articles using surgical video annotations to describe a surgical process model in the field of minimally invasive surgery. We excluded studies focusing on instrument detection or recognition of anatomical areas only. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Newcastle Ottawa Quality assessment tool. Data from the studies were visually presented in table using the SPIDER tool.

resultsOf the 2806 articles identified, 34 were selected for review. Twenty-two were in the field of digestive surgery, six in ophthalmologic surgery only, one in neurosurgery, three in gynecologic surgery, and two in mixed fields. Thirty-one studies (88.2%) were dedicated to phase, step, or action recognition and mainly relied on a very simple formalization (29, 85.2%). Clinical information in the datasets was lacking for studies using available public datasets. The process of annotation for surgical process model was lacking and poorly described, and description of the surgical procedures was highly variable between studies.

conclusionSurgical video annotation lacks a rigorous and reproducible framework. This leads to difficulties in sharing videos between institutions and hospitals because of the different languages used. There is a need to develop and use common ontology to improve libraries of annotated surgical videos.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansAnnotationMinimally invasive surgeryOntologySurgical data scienceSurgical process modelSurgical video

Identifiers

PMID37157035
PMCPMC10282964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.