Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39225933›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024

Registration accuracy comparing different rendering techniques on local vs external virtual 3D liver model reconstruction for vascular landmark setting by intraoperative ultrasound in augmented reality navigated liver resection.

Nonkoh J Sheriff, Michael Thomas, Alexander C Bunck, Matthias Peterhans, Rabi Raj Datta, Martin Hellmich, Christiane J Bruns, Dirk Ludger Stippel, Roger Wahba

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Nonkoh J SheriffDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplant Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Michael ThomasDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplant Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Alexander C BunckInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Matthias PeterhansCAScination AG, Steigerhubelstrasse 3, 3008, Berne, Switzerland.
Rabi Raj DattaDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplant Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Martin HellmichInstitute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Christiane J BrunsDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplant Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Dirk Ludger StippelDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplant Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Roger WahbaDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplant Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. roger.wahba@helios-gesundheit.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAugmented reality navigation in liver surgery still faces technical challenges like insufficient registration accuracy. This study compared registration accuracy between local and external virtual 3D liver models (vir3DLivers) generated with different rendering techniques and the use of the left vs right main portal vein branch (LPV vs RPV) for landmark setting. The study should further examine how registration accuracy behaves with increasing distance from the ROI.

methodsRetrospective registration accuracy analysis of an optical intraoperative 3D navigation system, used in 13 liver tumor patients undergoing liver resection/thermal ablation.

results109 measurements in 13 patients were performed. Registration accuracy with local and external vir3DLivers was comparable (8.76 ± 0.9 mm vs 7.85 ± 0.9 mm; 95% CI = -0.73 to 2.55 mm; p = 0.272). Registrations via the LPV demonstrated significantly higher accuracy than via the RPV (6.2 ± 0.85 mm vs 10.41 ± 0.99 mm, 95% CI = 2.39 to 6.03 mm, p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant positive but weak correlation between the accuracy (d

conclusionDespite basing on different rendering techniques both local and external vir3DLivers have comparable registration accuracy, while LPV-based registrations significantly outperform RPV-based ones in accuracy. Higher accuracy can be assumed within distances of up to a few centimeters around the ROI.

Indexed as

Augmented RealityHepatectomyImaging, Three-DimensionalLiver NeoplasmsSurgery, Computer-AssistedAgedAnatomic LandmarksFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPortal VeinRetrospective StudiesUltrasonography, InterventionalAugmented realityInnovationIntraoperative 3D navigationLiver surgeryRegistration accuracySegmentation

Identifiers

PMID39225933
PMCPMC11371850

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.