Literature DB >> 33201088

Machine Learning for Surgical Phase Recognition: A Systematic Review.

Carly R Garrow1, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski1,2, Linhong Li1, Martin Wagner1, Mona W Schmidt1, Sandy Engelhardt3, Daniel A Hashimoto4, Hannes G Kenngott1, Sebastian Bodenstedt5,6, Stefanie Speidel5,6, Beat P Müller-Stich1, Felix Nickel1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of ML models and data streams utilized for automated surgical phase recognition.
BACKGROUND: Phase recognition identifies different steps and phases of an operation. ML is an evolving technology that allows analysis and interpretation of huge data sets. Automation of phase recognition based on data inputs is essential for optimization of workflow, surgical training, intraoperative assistance, patient safety, and efficiency.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to the Cochrane recommendations and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. PubMed, Web of Science, IEEExplore, GoogleScholar, and CiteSeerX were searched. Literature describing phase recognition based on ML models and the capture of intraoperative signals during general surgery procedures was included.
RESULTS: A total of 2254 titles/abstracts were screened, and 35 full-texts were included. Most commonly used ML models were Hidden Markov Models and Artificial Neural Networks with a trend towards higher complexity over time. Most frequently used data types were feature learning from surgical videos and manual annotation of instrument use. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was used most commonly, often achieving accuracy rates over 90%, though there was no consistent standardization of defined phases.
CONCLUSIONS: ML for surgical phase recognition can be performed with high accuracy, depending on the model, data type, and complexity of surgery. Different intraoperative data inputs such as video and instrument type can successfully be used. Most ML models still require significant amounts of manual expert annotations for training. The ML models may drive surgical workflow towards standardization, efficiency, and objectiveness to improve patient outcome in the future. REGISTRATION PROSPERO: CRD42018108907.
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33201088     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004425

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  18 in total

Review 1.  Breaking down the silos of artificial intelligence in surgery: glossary of terms.

Authors:  Andrea Moglia; Konstantinos Georgiou; Luca Morelli; Konstantinos Toutouzas; Richard M Satava; Alfred Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  [ICG lymph node mapping in cancer surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract].

Authors:  Dolores Müller; Raphael Stier; Jennifer Straatman; Benjamin Babic; Lars Schiffmann; Jennifer Eckhoff; Thomas Schmidt; Christiane Bruns; Hans F Fuchs
Journal:  Chirurgie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-06-03

3.  Surgomics: personalized prediction of morbidity, mortality and long-term outcome in surgery using machine learning on multimodal data.

Authors:  Martin Wagner; Johanna M Brandenburg; Sebastian Bodenstedt; André Schulze; Alexander C Jenke; Antonia Stern; Marie T J Daum; Lars Mündermann; Fiona R Kolbinger; Nithya Bhasker; Gerd Schneider; Grit Krause-Jüttler; Hisham Alwanni; Fleur Fritz-Kebede; Oliver Burgert; Dirk Wilhelm; Johannes Fallert; Felix Nickel; Lena Maier-Hein; Martin Dugas; Marius Distler; Jürgen Weitz; Beat-Peter Müller-Stich; Stefanie Speidel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-09-28       Impact factor: 3.453

Review 4.  The Advances in Computer Vision That Are Enabling More Autonomous Actions in Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Andrew A Gumbs; Vincent Grasso; Nicolas Bourdel; Roland Croner; Gaya Spolverato; Isabella Frigerio; Alfredo Illanes; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Adrian Park; Eyad Elyan
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 3.847

5.  Interactive visual exploration of surgical process data.

Authors:  Benedikt Mayer; Monique Meuschke; Jimmy Chen; Beat P Müller-Stich; Martin Wagner; Bernhard Preim; Sandy Engelhardt
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2022-10-21       Impact factor: 3.421

6.  Data-centric multi-task surgical phase estimation with sparse scene segmentation.

Authors:  Ricardo Sanchez-Matilla; Maria Robu; Maria Grammatikopoulou; Imanol Luengo; Danail Stoyanov
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 3.421

Review 7.  Machine learning for technical skill assessment in surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kyle Lam; Junhong Chen; Zeyu Wang; Fahad M Iqbal; Ara Darzi; Benny Lo; Sanjay Purkayastha; James M Kinross
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2022-03-03

8.  PhacoTrainer: A Multicenter Study of Deep Learning for Activity Recognition in Cataract Surgical Videos.

Authors:  Hsu-Hang Yeh; Anjal M Jain; Olivia Fox; Sophia Y Wang
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 3.283

Review 9.  Artificial Intelligence in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Present and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Giuseppe Quero; Pietro Mascagni; Fiona R Kolbinger; Claudio Fiorillo; Davide De Sio; Fabio Longo; Carlo Alberto Schena; Vito Laterza; Fausto Rosa; Roberta Menghi; Valerio Papa; Vincenzo Tondolo; Caterina Cina; Marius Distler; Juergen Weitz; Stefanie Speidel; Nicolas Padoy; Sergio Alfieri
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 6.575

10.  Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study.

Authors:  E Willuth; S F Hardon; F Lang; C M Haney; E A Felinska; K F Kowalewski; B P Müller-Stich; T Horeman; F Nickel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.