ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Improved tumour localisation during minimally invasive liver surgery using augmented reality: a retrospective study with propensity score analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma based on individualized three-dimensional reconstruction model of portal vein region.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for perioperative precision in surgical oncology.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) decreases postoperative morbidity but presents specific difficulties, including precise tumour localisation. Conversion to open surgery is sometimes necessary because the tumour cannot be visualised. We previously proposed Hepataug, an augmented reality (AR) software for laparoscopic liver surgery that enables a deformable 3D model of a patient's liver to be merged semi-automatically with the image on the laparoscopic screen during surgery. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the contribution of AR to reducing the rate of conversion but without worsening resection margins.
methodsAll patients who underwent MILS between 2017 and 2023 were included and divided into two groups depending on whether AR guidance was used during surgery (AR+ group, n = 33) or not (AR- group, n = 212). The two groups were compared in terms of perioperative outcomes, and particularly the rate of conversion to laparotomy because of a failure to locate the tumour. A propensity score analysis was implemented using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method.
resultsThe conversion rate was zero in the AR+ group, while six patients in the AR- group required necessitated conversion to laparotomy to detect the tumour. AR increased operative time by around 10%, with no significant differences in terms of resection margins and postoperative complications (biliary fistula, Dindo-Clavien grade) between the two groups.
conclusionOur study showed that AR could successfully guide the intraoperative localisation of liver tumours and avoid conversion due to an intraoperative non-visualisation of tumours. In addition, AR did not increase postoperative complications or operative times, and could easily be applied during surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40624413What 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.