What is the state of this work? It looks like this position was first reached in July 2025. And mentioned in the Oct-25, and Jan-26 (not present in April).
From what I can tell there’s been no progress?
All 465 Laparoscopy procedures still have this role group.
Is there an ETA on fixing this?
The impact on extensions is that classifications results are dependent on how they’ve modelled the content - especially any concepts adhering proximal primitive modelling.
Hi @mcordell
Changes agreed within the EAG to the 423827005 |Endoscopy (procedure)| hierarchy are under review by the EAG members. Those changes include the retirement of the Incision RG from all intracavitary endoscopies among other changes. We expect comments from the EAG group but all changes are finished waiting for promotion.
This work wasn’t mentioned explicitly in the April’s agenda (retirement of the Incision RG) but you can see in item 3, “Update on previous discussions” and “Endoscopy revision”. May you have additional comments or questions, please let me know.
Thanks Victor, no feedback - just waiting on the changes so we can properly refactor our extension to align with the new pattern.
We’ve got a mix of proximal primitive and logical invariant modelling - and because of the introduction of the incision role group (that should never have been added to begin with…) all our “proximal primitive” laparoscopies are no longer subtypes of laparoscopy (127)…
So the sooner it’s fixed, and the updated - we can fix our extension content.
(Similarly affected content also exists in Ireland (1), Netherlands (3), Sweden (21), UK (41), US (1), Korea (2) that would also need to be fixed).
Hi Matt. Please, see the changes to Laparoscopy and Surgical procedure endorsed by the EAG already released in the International Edition. Cheers.
October release. It is visible now in Daily Build.
Hi @vmedina I can see the changes in the daily build. Looks good! I think the distinction is modelled more cleanly with the using device/using access device than previously with that incision role group. And it’s clear how to model the robot-assisted endoscopies as well.
I stumbled across an inconsistency in 63185002 |Laparoscopy with biopsy (procedure)|: in the inferred view it inherits a role group method = biopsy, using access device = endoscope, which cannot be correct. I think it’s affecting all its descendants as well. It must be caused by 53767003 |Endoscopic biopsy (procedure)|: it has GCI’s to ensure it subsumes all biopsies involving an endoscope, but then has a role group in the axioma that says they all use an endoscope as access device, which does not hold true for laparoscopies.
Solution: remove that ‘has access device’ from 53767003 |Endoscopic biopsy (procedure)|, leaving only ‘method = biopsy’ in that group. That makes the modelling similar to 363687006 |Endoscopic procedure (procedure)|.
I am not entirely sure what to think about the second GCI on 363687006 |Endoscopic procedure (procedure)| (inspection using body cavity endoscope). The result is that 13714004 |Arthroscopy (procedure)| is subsumed by 363687006 |Endoscopic procedure (procedure)|, even though no other action seems to be taken. Is that the behaviour we want?
Hi @fhielkema
Thanks for your feedback. Indeed I can see the inferred RG in Laparoscopy with biopsy (procedure). Tested your proposed solution and it worked fine. Re. “remove that ‘has access device’ from 53767003 |Endoscopic biopsy (procedure)|, leaving only ‘method = biopsy’ in that group. That makes the modelling similar to 363687006 |Endoscopic procedure (procedure)|.”
Will fix that issue.
Per the new model, 13714004 |Arthroscopy (procedure)| should be subsumed by 363687006 |Endoscopic procedure (procedure)| but… also by 387713003 |Surgical procedure (procedure)|which is why the changes had been done to this later procedure.
