Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42762281›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026

AI-based smoke removal in robotic urooncologic surgery: a clinical pilot study.

Leonhard Buck, Silja Janßen, Jakob Kohler, Julian Risch, Anton Moderegger, Daniar Osmonov, Jonas Jarczyk, Axel Merseburger, Kevin Köser, Philipp Nuhn and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. 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

11 authors.

Leonhard Buck *Department of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, 24105, Kiel, Germany, Campus Kiel. leonhard.buck@uksh.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4565-7933
Silja Janßen *Department of Computer Science, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, 24118, Kiel, Germany.
Jakob KohlerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, 24105, Kiel, Germany, Campus Kiel.
Julian RischDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, 24105, Kiel, Germany, Campus Kiel.
Anton ModereggerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany, 23538.
Daniar OsmonovDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany, 23538.
Jonas JarczykDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, 24105, Kiel, Germany, Campus Kiel.
Axel MerseburgerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany, 23538.
Kevin KöserDepartment of Computer Science, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, 24118, Kiel, Germany.
Philipp NuhnDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, 24105, Kiel, Germany, Campus Kiel.
Severin RodlerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, 24105, Kiel, Germany, Campus Kiel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgical smoke from electrocautery limits visibility during robot-assisted oncological surgery by obscuring tumor margins, blood vessels and anatomical landmarks. AI-based smoke removal demonstrated promising technical performance, structured clinical evaluation remains limited. This pilot study examined surgeons' perceptions of a temporally consistent 3D U-Net applied to intraoperative smoke. Twenty urologists and residents retrospectively assessed ten pairs of endoscopic videos offline, showing original and AI-processed clips. A questionnaire evaluated general impressions (seven items, five-point Likert scale), direct comparisons across four image dimensions, open-ended feedback and overall utility. Visibility of anatomical details and depth perception were rated equal to the smoke-affected original by 75% of participants and slightly better by 25%. Color fidelity was rated equal by 85% and slightly better by 15%. None rated these dimensions worse (0/20, exact 95% CI 0 to 16.8%), and no participant selected the highest rating. Image stability was rated worse by 20%. Half disagreed that the processed footage appeared clearer. Overall utility was rated positively by 40%, neutrally by 35% and negatively by 25%. In this small, unblinded, single-institution retrospective pilot study, AI processing was not associated with a perceived worsening of anatomical detail, depth perception or color fidelity. However, confidence intervals remain wide and the study was not designed to establish equivalence. Most participants perceived no improvement in image clarity or orientation support. Artifact reduction, real-time performance and blinded multicenter evaluation are required before clinical use.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceElectrocoagulationRobotic Surgical ProceduresSmokeUrologic Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansPilot ProjectsRetrospective StudiesSmoke3D U-NetArtificial intelligenceDeep learningEndoscopic surgeryRobotic surgerySurgical smoke removal

Identifiers

PMID42762281
PMCPMC13589700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.