ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
From precision to strength: computer vision for suture quality assessment-an ex vivo pilot study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSuturing is the cornerstone of surgical practice, yet its assessment continues to rely on subjective evaluation. As minimally invasive techniques become increasingly central in surgery, the demand for precision grows. In this context, the present pilot study aims to investigate whether spatial metrics of suture placement can quantitatively reflect mechanical performance and to determine how operator experience and surgical platform influence technical outcomes.
methodsFifteen participants, stratified by prior experience in minimally invasive surgery, performed standardized suturing tasks on porcine rectal specimens using three platforms: conventional laparoscopy, the daVinci Research Kit (dVRK), and the Flex robotic endoscope. Quantitative Suture Assessment was conducted by extracting spatial features (e.g., distance variability between consecutive stitches), while mechanical resistance was evaluated via intraluminal burst pressure. Statistical analyses included correlation and regression modeling to assess the relationship between spatial metrics and burst pressure, as well as comparative analyses across platforms and experience levels.
resultsMean burst pressures measured 17.38 ± 6.54 mmHg for laparoscopy, 15.99 ± 7.69 mmHg for dVRK, and 13.60 ± 10.08 mmHg for Flex. Masters recorded a mean burst pressure of 17.95 ± 9.43 mmHg, while Advanced 13.89 ± 7.41 mmHg and Beginners 15.13 ± 7.64 mmHg. Laparoscopy achieved higher burst pressures than Flex, and dVRK outperformed Flex among Beginners. Laparoscopy and dVRK were faster than Flex, with Masters completing tasks more rapidly across all platforms. Spacing irregularity was negatively correlated with burst pressure (p < 0.05). However, the XGBoost model trained on all variables exhibited poor performance (R
conclusionsPlatform-specific scores emerged with limitations. While spatial metrics correlate with mechanical resistance, they appear insufficient as standalone indicators of suture quality. Ultimately, this approach could pave the way toward intelligent, intraoperative systems capable of delivering real-time feedback, with implications for both surgical education and quality assurance.
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.