ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Automated surgical instrument recognition in laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos: a novel two-step deep learning approach with virtual image synthesis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo optimize surgical procedures and prevent retained surgical instruments, precise identification of required instruments during surgical treatment is essential. However, establishing ground truth data can be a labor-intensive barrier for researchers. Therefore, we developed and evaluated a novel system for detecting laparoscopic surgical instruments during laparoscopic cholecystectomy through virtual image creation.
methodsVirtual images were created by synthesizing laparoscopic instrument photos with surgical video backgrounds. The 311 instrument images and 1610 background images from 52 patients were augmented through random brightness, contrast, crop, rotation, scaling, flipping, and perspective transformations, resulting in 6023 composite images. These data were split into training, tuning, and internal test sets. Based on synthetic data, we developed a system comprising two-step processes. The first model is a unified instrument localization model that detects surgical instruments, and the second model is an instrument-type classification model that categorizes the detected surgical instruments. External and public datasets were used to evaluate generalizability.
resultsThe unified instrument localization model achieved average precision (AP) values with intersection over union (IoU) of 0.5 of 0.981, 0.882, and 0.689 for internal, external, and public datasets, respectively. The instrument-type classification model demonstrated area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.959 for seven instrument types in the external dataset and 0.749 for four instrument types in the public dataset. The final two-step instrument detection model demonstrated an AUC of 0.848 for the external dataset and 0.688 for the public dataset, which showed significantly superior performance compared to conventional multi-class instrument models.
conclusionsThis validated deep learning model using synthetically generated data provides a reliable framework for surgical instrument detection. Our approach demonstrates strong performance and generalizability, suggesting its potential for improving operative workflow efficiency and surgical education across various minimally invasive procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41184678What 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.