ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Artificial intelligence-based phase recognition for workflow analysis in robotic choledochal cyst excision: a proof-of-concept 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAutomated surgical phase recognition may convert routinely recorded robotic surgery videos into objective workflow metrics, but its clinical interpretability in complex robotic pediatric and hepatobiliary procedures remains unclear.
methodsIn this retrospective proof-of-concept study, we developed and internally evaluated a video-based phase-recognition model for robotic choledochal cyst surgery using nine predefined operative phases. The model was trained on 20 robotic cases and evaluated on an independent internal dataset of 10 cases. AI-derived phase durations were applied to a separate clinical interpretation cohort of 20 consecutive single-surgeon robotic cases, including 12 pediatric and 8 adult patients. Phase-specific workflow differences, case-order trends, contributors to operative-time variability, correlations with estimated blood loss, and exploratory early-phase prediction were analyzed.
resultsAfter temporal smoothing, the model achieved an overall accuracy of 80.1% (95% CI 77.2-82.9%). Adult cases had significantly longer total operative times than pediatric cases (median 516.2 vs. 372.8 min; p = 0.009), with longer durations in preparation, transverse colon takedown, post-anastomosis-to-completion, and Phase 7 (Others). The main phases associated with operative-time variability differed by age group: post-anastomosis-to-completion and lower bile-duct dissection in pediatric cases, and proximal bile-duct dissection in adults. Estimated blood loss correlated positively with AI-derived durations of lower bile-duct dissection (rho = 0.684, p = 0.001) and proximal bile-duct dissection (rho = 0.475, p = 0.034). No clear association was observed with postoperative bile leakage.
conclusionAI-based phase recognition provided clinically interpretable workflow metrics in robotic choledochal cyst excision, identifying phase-specific workflow variation not captured by total operative time. These preliminary findings support further validation of phase-based robotic workflow analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42834179What 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.