ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Proprietary platform artificial intelligence-based segmentation of surgical videos facilitates review and rating of operative recordings.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in surgery may revolutionize assessment of operative techniques through video capture, auto-segmentation and auto-analysis. The aim of this study was to utilize recordings of a highly standardized surgical intervention, testing the ability of commercially available AI software to auto-segment operative footage in a clinically meaningful way.
methodsTwenty-five critical steps in liver graft back-table preparations for connection to a commercially available normothermic perfusion liver pump were determined. Five operative videos were captured manually edited. In addition, using the AI-based GoPro auto-edit feature, the last two recordings were auto-segmented for separate analysis and comparison against the manually edited footage. Each manual and auto-segmented video was assessed for: a) inclusion of each one of the 25 steps, (b) technical performance and completion. The assessment was conducted by an independent experienced transplant surgeon using a modified Likert scale (0-not captured, 1-poor, 2-average, 3-excellent).
resultsReviewing and rating AI auto-segmented videos was 16 times faster compared to raw video review. Reviewing and rating AI auto-segmented videos was 96 times faster compared to manually segmented recordings, accounting for time needed to edit raw videos. The average number of steps captured between both raw videos and the manually edited videos was 22.5. The average number of steps captured across the AI auto-segmented videos was 19.5 (87%). The average technical grade for the raw and the manually edited videos was 2.58 ± 0.71, and 2.14 ± 0.99 for the AI auto-segmented videos, denoting a rating congruency of 82.9%.
conclusionAI-based auto-segmentation is an attractive tool for assessment of surgical performance, as it significantly expedites the editing process to prepare footage for review by subject matter experts. To which extent this approach will be applicable outside highly standardized surgical interventions must be further studied.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42881307What 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.