| Title |
Computer-assisted 3D bowel length measurement for quantitative laparoscopy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-018-6135-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Wagner, Benjamin Friedrich Berthold Mayer, Sebastian Bodenstedt, Katherine Stemmer, Arash Fereydooni, Stefanie Speidel, Rüdiger Dillmann, Felix Nickel, Lars Fischer, Hannes Götz Kenngott |
| Abstract |
This study aimed at developing and evaluating a tool for computer-assisted 3D bowel length measurement (BMS) to improve objective measurement in minimally invasive surgery. Standardization and quality of surgery as well as its documentation are currently limited by lack of objective intraoperative measurements. To solve this problem, we developed BMS as a clinical application of Quantitative Laparoscopy (QL). BMS processes images from a conventional 3D laparoscope. Computer vision algorithms are used to measure the distance between laparoscopic instruments along a 3D reconstruction of the bowel surface. Preclinical evaluation was performed in phantom, ex vivo porcine, and in vivo porcine models. A bowel length of 70 cm was measured with BMS and compared to a manually obtained ground truth. Afterwards 70 cm of bowel (ground truth) was measured and compared to BMS. Ground truth was 66.1 ± 2.7 cm (relative error + 5.8%) in phantom, 65.8 ± 2.5 cm (relative error + 6.4%) in ex vivo, and 67.5 ± 6.6 cm (relative error + 3.7%) in in vivo porcine evaluation when 70 cm was measured with BMS. Using 70 cm of bowel, BMS measured 75.0 ± 2.9 cm (relative error + 7.2%) in phantom and 74.4 ± 2.8 cm (relative error + 6.3%) in ex vivo porcine evaluation. After thorough preclinical evaluation, BMS was successfully used in a patient undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. QL using BMS was shown to be feasible and was successfully translated from studies on phantom, ex vivo, and in vivo porcine bowel to a clinical feasibility study. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 42% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,094,152
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,125
of 6,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,041
of 332,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#59
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,110 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.