Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37365396›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

Impact of AI system on recognition for anatomical landmarks related to reducing bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Yuichi Endo, Tatsushi Tokuyasu, Yasuhisa Mori, Koji Asai, Akiko Umezawa, Masahiro Kawamura, Atsuro Fujinaga, Aika Ejima, Misako Kimura, Masafumi Inomata

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Yuichi EndoDepartment of Gastroenterological and Pediatric Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Oita University, Oita, Japan. endo@oita-u.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-8792-4067
Tatsushi TokuyasuDepartment of Information System and Engineering, Faculty of Information Engineering, Fukuoka Institute of Technology, Fukuoka, Japan.
Yasuhisa MoriDepartment of Surgery 1, School of Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Japan.
Koji AsaiDepartment of Surgery, Toho University Ohashi Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Akiko UmezawaMinimally Invasive Surgery Center, Yotsuya Medical Cube, Tokyo, Japan.
Masahiro KawamuraDepartment of Gastroenterological and Pediatric Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Oita University, Oita, Japan.
Atsuro FujinagaDepartment of Gastroenterological and Pediatric Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Oita University, Oita, Japan.
Aika EjimaDepartment of Information System and Engineering, Faculty of Information Engineering, Fukuoka Institute of Technology, Fukuoka, Japan.
Misako KimuraDepartment of Information System and Engineering, Faculty of Information Engineering, Fukuoka Institute of Technology, Fukuoka, Japan.
Masafumi InomataDepartment of Gastroenterological and Pediatric Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Oita University, Oita, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccording to the National Clinical Database of Japan, the incidence of bile duct injury (BDI) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy has hovered around 0.4% for the last 10 years and has not declined. On the other hand, it has been found that about 60% of BDI occurrences are due to misidentifying anatomical landmarks. However, the authors developed an artificial intelligence (AI) system that gave intraoperative data to recognize the extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD), cystic duct (CD), inferior border of liver S4 (S4), and Rouviere sulcus (RS). The purpose of this research was to evaluate how the AI system affects landmark identification.

methodsWe prepared a 20-s intraoperative video before the serosal incision of Calot's triangle dissection and created a short video with landmarks overwritten by AI. The landmarks were defined as landmark (LM)-EHBD, LM-CD, LM-RS, and LM-S4. Four beginners and four experts were recruited as subjects. After viewing a 20-s intraoperative video, subjects annotated the LM-EHBD and LM-CD. Then, a short video is shown with the AI overwriting landmark instructions; if there is a change in each perspective, the annotation is changed. The subjects answered a three-point scale questionnaire to clarify whether the AI teaching data advanced their confidence in verifying the LM-RS and LM-S4. Four external evaluation committee members investigated the clinical importance.

resultsIn 43 of 160 (26.9%) images, the subjects transformed their annotations. Annotation changes were primarily observed in the gallbladder line of the LM-EHBD and LM-CD, and 70% of these shifts were considered safer changes. The AI-based teaching data encouraged both beginners and experts to affirm the LM-RS and LM-S4.

conclusionThe AI system provided significant awareness to beginners and experts and prompted them to identify anatomical landmarks linked to reducing BDI.

Indexed as

Abdominal InjuriesBile Duct DiseasesBile Ducts, ExtrahepaticCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicArtificial IntelligenceBile DuctsCystic DuctHumansAnatomical landmarksAnd laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)Artificial intelligence (AI)Bile duct injury (BDI)

Identifiers

PMID37365396
PMCPMC10322759

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.