| Literature DB >> 35355212 |
Yirou Pan1, Sophia Bano2, Francisco Vasconcelos1, Hyun Park3, Taikyeong Ted Jeong4, Danail Stoyanov1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery has become the trend in medicine thanks to its convenience and lower risk of infection against traditional open surgery. However, the visibility during these procedures may severely deteriorate due to electrocauterisation which generates smoke in the operating cavity. This decreased visibility hinders the procedural time and surgical performance. Recent deep learning-based techniques have shown the potential for smoke and glare removal, but few targets laparoscopic videos.Entities:
Keywords: Deep learning; Desmoking; Generative adversarial network; Robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35355212 PMCID: PMC9110497 DOI: 10.1007/s11548-022-02595-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg ISSN: 1861-6410 Impact factor: 3.421
Fig. 1Sample laparoscopic frames showing different grades of smoke in input and desmoked output from the proposed DeSmoke-LAP method
Fig. 2An overview of the proposed DeSmoke-LAP method. The inter-channel (IC) discrepancies and dark channel (DC) prior are introduced to qualify the remaining smoke, aiding cycle-consistency and adversarial losses in smoke removal
Fig. 3FADE value of clear (left) and hazy (right) images in fold 3 with various
Fig. 4Log of cycle loss, DC loss and IC loss in 100 epoches
Quantitative comparison through five-fold cross-validation on the organised clear and hazy images dataset. Mean and standard deviation of the 3 metrics are reported. Lower FADE, and higher JNBM and REA values are better
| FADE | JNBM | REA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clear | Hazy | Clear | Hazy | Clear | Hazy | |
| Input | 0.41±0.14 | 0.85±0.53 | 1.71±0.24 | 1.13±0.30 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| CycleGAN [ | 0.42±0.12 | 0.43±0.14 | 1.01±0.23 | 1.11+0.23 | 1.12±0.20 | 1.33±0.37 |
| FastCUT [ | 0.61±0.22 | 0.81±0.21 | 1.19±0.27 | 1.11±0.25 | 2.00±0.58 | 2.34±0.55 |
| Colores et al. [ | 0.31±0.08 | 0.40±0.12 | 1.27±0.27 | 1.19±0.26 | ||
| Cycle-Dehaze [ | 1.65±0.42 | 1.77±0.55 | ||||
| DeSmoke-LAP (IC) | 0.42±0.15 | 0.41±0.17 | 0.97±0.20 | 1.00±0.27 | 1.02±0.15 | 1.37±0.33 |
| DeSmoke-LAP (DC) | 0.41±0.15 | 0.41±0.15 | 0.99±0.25 | 1.11±0.24 | 1.06±0.12 | 1.38±0.31 |
| DeSmoke-LAP (IC+DC) | ||||||
Comparative analysis using the video clips’ dataset, reporting mean and standard deviation of the 3 metrics
| FADE | JNBM | REA | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.95±0.50 | 2.80±1.09 | 0.00 | |
| CycleGAN [ | 0.40±0.2 | 1.05±0.15 | 1.37±0.35 |
| FastCUT [ | 0.59±0.27 | 1.11±0.20 | 1.13±0.18 |
| Colores et al. [ | 0.36±0.09 | 1.18±0.20 | |
| Cycle-Dehaze [ | 1.60±0.34 | ||
| DeSmoke-LAP (IC) | 0.38±0.77 | 1.00±0.19 | 1.70±1.17 |
| DeSmoke-LAP (DC) | 0.37±0.83 | 1.07±0.18 | 1.74±1.00 |
| DeSmoke-LAP (IC+DC) |
Lower FADE, and higher JNBM and REA values are better
Fig. 5Qualitative comparison of the DeSmoke-LAP with the existing approaches using representative frames from 10 video clips where JNBM value of each image is also displayed
Fig. 6Qualitative analysis performed through the user study where the participants (surgeons) rated the output videos from each method based on two statements, a overall ranking of all methods under comparison, b individual surgeon’s ranking on statement 1: smoke is removed completely, c individual surgeon’s ranking on statement 2: video quality is not degraded