ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Technological advancements in surgical laparoscopy considering artificial intelligence: a survey among surgeons in Germany.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clear Vision, Clear Savings: Enhancing Efficiency in Minimally Invasive Surgery.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsPooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review of Its Role in Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- ChatGPT in general surgery: a cross-sectional study assessing its response to patient questions.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Quantifying lens obstructions in minimally invasive surgery: the impact on performance and outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- Review
- Innovations in Hybrid Laparoscopic Surgery: Integrating Advanced Technologies for Multidisciplinary Cases.Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into surgical laparoscopy has shown promising results in recent years. This survey aims to investigate the inconveniences of current conventional laparoscopy and to evaluate the attitudes and desires of surgeons in Germany towards new AI-based laparoscopic systems.
methodsA 12-item web-based questionnaire was distributed to 38 German university hospitals as well as to a Germany-wide voluntary hospital association (CLINOTEL) consisting of 66 hospitals between July and November 2022.
resultsA total of 202 questionnaires were completed. The majority of respondents (88.1%) stated that they needed one assistant during laparoscopy and rated the assistants' skillfulness as "very important" (39.6%) or "important" (49.5%). The most uncomfortable aspects of conventional laparoscopy were inappropriate camera movement (73.8%) and lens condensation (73.3%). Selected features that should be included in a new laparoscopic system were simple and intuitive maneuverability (81.2%), automatic de-fogging (80.7%), and self-cleaning of camera (77.2%). Furthermore, AI-based features were improvement of camera positioning (71.3%), visualization of anatomical landmarks (67.3%), image stabilization (66.8%), and tissue damage protection (59.4%). The reason for purchasing an AI-based system was to improve patient safety (86.1%); the reasonable price was €50.000-100.000 (34.2%), and it was expected to replace the existing assistants' workflow up to 25% (41.6%).
conclusionSimple and intuitive maneuverability with improved and image-stabilized camera guidance in combination with a lens cleaning system as well as AI-based augmentation of anatomical landmarks and tissue damage protection seem to be significant requirements for the further development of laparoscopic systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.