ReviewJournal of imaging2024
Image-Based 3D Reconstruction in Laparoscopy: A Review Focusing on the Quantitative Evaluation by Applying the Reconstruction Error.
Review in Journal of imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- In vitro development of the Autonomous Colonoscope Robot System (ACRS) for fully automated colonoscope insertion.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Glasses-free three-dimensional laparoscopic systems in oncologic surgery: Innovation or equivalence?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- A Projective-Geometry-Aware Network for 3D Vertebra Localization in Calibrated Biplanar X-Ray Images.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Robot-Based Procedure for 3D Reconstruction of Abdominal Organs Using the Iterative Closest Point and Pose Graph Algorithms.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Image-based 3D reconstruction enables laparoscopic applications as image-guided navigation and (autonomous) robot-assisted interventions, which require a high accuracy. The review's purpose is to present the accuracy of different techniques to label the most promising. A systematic literature search with PubMed and google scholar from 2015 to 2023 was applied by following the framework of "Review articles: purpose, process, and structure". Articles were considered when presenting a quantitative evaluation (root mean squared error and mean absolute error) of the reconstruction error (Euclidean distance between real and reconstructed surface). The search provides 995 articles, which were reduced to 48 articles after applying exclusion criteria. From these, a reconstruction error data set could be generated for the techniques of stereo vision, Shape-from-Motion, Simultaneous Localization and Mapping, deep-learning, and structured light. The reconstruction error varies from below one millimeter to higher than ten millimeters-with deep-learning and Simultaneous Localization and Mapping delivering the best results under intraoperative conditions. The high variance emerges from different experimental conditions. In conclusion, submillimeter accuracy is challenging, but promising image-based 3D reconstruction techniques could be identified. For future research, we recommend computing the reconstruction error for comparison purposes and use ex/in vivo organs as reference objects for realistic experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.