| Literature DB >> 35360477 |
Hua Wang1, Yanxiao Liu1, Yancheng Li1.
Abstract
The preoperative qualitative and hierarchical diagnosis of intervertebral foramen stenosis is very important for clinicians to explore the effect of multimodal analgesia nursing on pain control after spinal fusion and to formulate treatment strategies and patients' health recovery. However, there are still many problems in this aspect, and there is a lack of relevant research and effective methods to assist clinicians in diagnosis. Therefore, to improve the accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis of intervertebral foramen stenosis and the work efficiency of doctors, a deep learning automatic grading algorithm of intervertebral foramen stenosis image is proposed in this study. The image of intervertebral foramen was extracted from the MRI image of sagittal spine, and the image was preprocessed. 86 patients with spinal fusion treated in our hospital, specifically from May 2018 to May 2020, were randomly divided into the control group (routine analgesic nursing) and the multimodal group (multimodal analgesic nursing), with 43 cases in each group. The pain control effect and satisfaction of the two groups were observed. The results after multimodal analgesia nursing show that the VASs of the multimodal group at different time points were significantly lower than those of the control group (P < 0.05); the satisfaction score of pain control in the multimodal group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05). Multimodal analgesia nursing for patients undergoing spinal fusion can effectively reduce the degree of postoperative pain and improve the effect of pain control and satisfaction with pain control, which is worthy of promotion.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35360477 PMCID: PMC8964172 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2779686
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1IFS net model framework.
Comparison of VASs between the two groups at different time points after operation (, points).
| Group | N | 2 h after operation | 6 h after operation | 12 h after operation | 24 h after operation | 48 h after operation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal group | 43 | 4.34 ± 0.41 | 3.34 ± 0.21 | 3.01 ± 0.21 | 2.49 ± 0.21 | 2.11 ± 0.14 |
| Control group | 43 | 5.31 ± 0.37 | 4.98 ± 0.34 | 4.24 ± 0.28 | 3.41 ± 0.24 | 2.48 ± 0.23 |
| T value | 4.459 | 5.126 | 6.198 | 5.126 | 4.480 | |
|
| 0.035 | 0.026 | 0.013 | 0.024 | 0.034 |
Comparison of pain control satisfaction scores between the two groups at discharge ( points).
| Group | N | Analgesic education | Pain relief | Psychological comfort | Care received | Total score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal group | 43 | 22.36 ± 1.26 | 22.56 ± 1.23 | 22.39 ± 1.87 | 22.41 ± 1.42 | 90.41 ± 6.25 |
| Control group | 43 | 17.26 ± 1.11 | 17.39 ± 1.29 | 17.26 ± 1.99 | 17.29 ± 1.36 | 70.26 ± 3.29 |
| T value | 6.654 | 7.111 | 8.274 | 6.051 | 7.862 | |
|
| 0.010 | 0.008 | 0.004 | 0.014 | 0.005 |
List of feature descriptors and their feature vector dimensions.
| Descriptor | Eigenvector dimension |
|---|---|
| LBP | 59 |
| LPQ | 256 |
| GLCM | 8 |
| HOG | 4356 |
| ORB | 32 |
Accuracy and F1 statistics of different methods.
| Traditional classifier | Method | Validation set accuracy | Test set accuracy |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-NN | LBP | 49.4 ± 2.1 | 51.8 ± 2.5 | 0.712 |
| LPQ | 63.5 ± 2.7 | 53.7 ± 2.7 | 0.517 | |
| GLCM | 65.3 ± 1.7 | 53.6 ± 1.6 | 0.725 | |
| ORB | 66.1 ± 3.5 | 63.7 ± 3.4 | 0.764 | |
| HOG | 51.7 ± 1.3 | 61.3 ± 0.7 | 0.768 | |
|
| ||||
| ELM | LBP | 69.4 ± 1.0 | 51.3 ± 2.1 | 0.742 |
| LPQ | 61.6 ± 1.8 | 57.6 ± 2.3 | 0.76 | |
| GLCM | 73.3 ± 2.9 | 57.3 ± 3.0 | 0.786 | |
| ORB | 67.2 ± 1.9 | 65.4 ± 3.8 | 0.73 | |
| HOG | 63.5 ± 2.7 | 61.4 ± 1.8 | 0.697 | |
Figure 2Comparison of classification accuracy of traditional machine learning algorithms (feature descriptor + classifier).
Figure 3Comparison of algorithm performance of different depth learning models.
Figure 4Comparison of loss curve fitting degree of different training strategies.
Confusion matrix of stenosis classification results of IFS net algorithm.
| Stenosis category |
|
|
|
| ACC/% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 24 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 92.31 |
|
| 4 | 16 | 3 | 3 | 71.54 |
|
| 4 | 0 | 21 | 0 | 84 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 3 | 22 | 88 |