Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38374643›Full record

ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment

Computer Vision and Machine-Learning Techniques for Automatic 3D Virtual Images Overlapping During Augmented Reality Guided Robotic Partial Nephrectomy.

Daniele Amparore, Michele Sica, Paolo Verri, Federico Piramide, Enrico Checcucci, Sabrina De Cillis, Alberto Piana, Davide Campobasso, Mariano Burgio, Edoardo Cisero and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Artificial intelligence in urology training Enhancing annotation, feedback, and evaluation in robotic, laparoscopic, and endoscopic surgery.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Current progress of digital twin construction using medical imaging.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025
    Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

15 authors.

Daniele AmparoreDivision of Urology, Dept. of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano (Turin), Italy.
Michele SicaDivision of Urology, Dept. of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano (Turin), Italy.
Paolo VerriDivision of Urology, Dept. of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano (Turin), Italy.
Federico PiramideDivision of Urology, Dept. of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano (Turin), Italy.
Enrico CheccucciDepartment of Surgery, Candiolo Cancer Institute FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Italy.
Sabrina De CillisDivision of Urology, Dept. of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano (Turin), Italy.
Alberto PianaDivision of Urology, Dept. of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano (Turin), Italy.
Davide CampobassoUrology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2072-114X
Mariano BurgioDivision of Urology, Dept. of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano (Turin), Italy.
Edoardo CiseroDivision of Urology, Dept. of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano (Turin), Italy.
Giovanni BusaccaDivision of Urology, Dept. of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano (Turin), Italy.
Michele Di DioDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Annunziata Hospital, Cosenza, Italy.
Pietro PiazzollaDepartment of Management and Production Engineer, Polytechnic University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Cristian FioriDivision of Urology, Dept. of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano (Turin), Italy.
Francesco PorpigliaDivision of Urology, Dept. of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano (Turin), Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe research's purpose is to develop a software that automatically integrates and overlay 3D virtual models of kidneys harboring renal masses into the Da Vinci robotic console, assisting surgeon during the intervention.

introductionPrecision medicine, especially in the field of minimally-invasive partial nephrectomy, aims to use 3D virtual models as a guidance for augmented reality robotic procedures. However, the co-registration process of the virtual images over the real operative field is performed manually.

methodsIn this prospective study, two strategies for the automatic overlapping of the model over the real kidney were explored: the computer vision technology, leveraging the super-enhancement of the kidney allowed by the intraoperative injection of Indocyanine green for superimposition and the convolutional neural network technology, based on the processing of live images from the endoscope, after a training of the software on frames from prerecorded videos of the same surgery. The work-team, comprising a bioengineer, a software-developer and a surgeon, collaborated to create hyper-accuracy 3D models for automatic 3D-AR-guided RAPN. For each patient, demographic and clinical data were collected.

resultsTwo groups (group A for the first technology with 12 patients and group B for the second technology with 8 patients) were defined. They showed comparable preoperative and post-operative characteristics. Concerning the first technology the average co-registration time was 7 (3-11) seconds while in the case of the second technology 11 (6-13) seconds. No major intraoperative or postoperative complications were recorded. There were no differences in terms of functional outcomes between the groups at every time-point considered.

conclusionThe first technology allowed a successful anchoring of the 3D model to the kidney, despite minimal manual refinements. The second technology improved kidney automatic detection without relying on indocyanine injection, resulting in better organ boundaries identification during tests. Further studies are needed to confirm this preliminary evidence.

Indexed as

Augmented RealityKidney NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurgery, Computer-AssistedComputersHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalNephrectomyProspective Studiesartificial intelligencekidney cancernephron-sparing surgeryrenal cell carcinomarobotic surgerythree-dimensional imaging

Identifiers

PMID38374643
PMCPMC10878218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.