| Literature DB >> 35641505 |
Chen Wang1, Paul Calle2, Justin C Reynolds2, Sam Ton1, Feng Yan1, Anthony M Donaldson1, Avery D Ladymon1, Pamela R Roberts3, Alberto J de Armendi3, Kar-Ming Fung4,5, Shashank S Shettar3, Chongle Pan2, Qinggong Tang6,7.
Abstract
Epidural anesthesia requires injection of anesthetic into the epidural space in the spine. Accurate placement of the epidural needle is a major challenge. To address this, we developed a forward-view endoscopic optical coherence tomography (OCT) system for real-time imaging of the tissue in front of the needle tip during the puncture. We tested this OCT system in porcine backbones and developed a set of deep learning models to automatically process the imaging data for needle localization. A series of binary classification models were developed to recognize the five layers of the backbone, including fat, interspinous ligament, ligamentum flavum, epidural space, and spinal cord. The classification models provided an average classification accuracy of 96.65%. During puncture, it is important to maintain a safe distance between the needle tip and the dura mater. Regression models were developed to estimate that distance based on the OCT imaging data. Based on the Inception architecture, our models achieved a mean absolute percentage error of 3.05% ± 0.55%. Overall, our results validated the technical feasibility of using this novel imaging strategy to automatically recognize different tissue structures and measure the distances ahead of the needle tip during the epidural needle placement.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35641505 PMCID: PMC9156706 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-12950-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1(A) Endoscopic OCT scanner setup and the representative OCT images of five epidural tissue layer categories. (B) Histology results of different tissue layers.
Average accuracies and standard error based on the practical tissue layer sequence during puncture for cross-validation.
| Testing fold | Fat vs Ligament | Ligament vs Flavum | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ResNet50 | Xception | Inception | ResNet50 | Xception | Inception | |
| S1 | 95.1% ± 2.2% | 82.8% ± 8.5% | 90.4% ± 2.2% | 97.9% ± 1.7% | 98.5% ± 1.2% | 97.8% ± 2.0% |
| S2 | 93.6% ± 2.4% | 88.2% ± 6.5% | 92.4% ± 2.1% | 98.7% ± 1.2% | 98.9% ± 1.0% | 98.9% ± 1.0% |
| S3 | 94.5% ± 2.5% | 84.4% ± 6.5% | 88.0% ± 2.4% | 99.4% ± 0.5% | 99.6% ± 0.3% | 99.0% ± 0.5% |
| S4 | 90.9% ± 2.9% | 84.7% ± 6.3% | 89.7% ± 2.8% | 98.5% ± 1.3% | 98.7% ± 0.8% | 97.7% ± 1.9% |
| S5 | 89.9% ± 2.3% | 86.9% ± 4.7% | 89.3% ± 2.5% | 98.4% ± 1.4% | 98.4% ± 0.9% | 98.0% ± 1.5% |
| S6 | 90.6% ± 3.7% | 82.3% ± 8.5% | 89.9% ± 2.2% | 98.8% ± 0.9% | 98.2% ± 1.2% | 97.8% ± 1.9% |
| S7 | 90.7% ± 3.5% | 86.0% ± 3.3% | 88.1% ± 3.0% | 98.4% ± 1.4% | 99.1% ± 0.7% | 97.0% ± 2.7% |
| S8 | 88.7% ± 3.8% | 82.7% ± 6.3% | 86.3% ± 2.7% | 98.7% ± 1.1% | 98.8% ± 0.6% | 98.7% ± 0.8% |
| Average | 91.8% ± 1.0% | 84.7% ± 2.2% | 89.3% ± 2.2% | 98.6% ± 0.4% | 98.8% ± 0.3% | 98.1% ± 0.6% |
Average and standard error for cross-testing for the four binary comparisons for ResNet50.
| Testing fold | Fat vs Ligament | Ligament vs Flavum | Flavum vs Epidural Space | Epidural Space vs Spinal Cord | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 81.3% | 98.8% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 95.0% ± 4.6% |
| S2 | 67.3% | 98.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 91.3% ± 8.0% |
| S3 | 92.0% | 87.7% | 98.8% | 100.0% | 94.6% ± 2.9% |
| S4 | 99.9% | 99.4% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 99.8% ± 0.1% |
| S5 | 98.8% | 99.4% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 99.6% ± 0.3% |
| S6 | 79.5% | 99.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 94.6% ± 5.1% |
| S7 | 94.2% | 99.8% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 98.5% ± 1.4% |
| S8 | 98.8% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 99.7% ± 0.3% |
| Average | 89.0% ± 4.2% | 97.8% ± 1.5% | 99.8% ± 0.2% | 100.0% ± 0.0% | 96.65% ± 1.32% |
Figure 2Class activation heatmaps for Subject 7 using ResNet50 in cross-testing (A) and video captures of the insertion process (B).
The average loss for each model type in cross-validation for each testing fold.
| Testing folds | ResNet50 | Xception | Inception |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 3.71% ± 0.91% | 3.99% ± 1.14% | 3.13% ± 0.60% |
| S2 | 4.04% ± 0.99% | 3.84% ± 0.98% | 3.42% ± 0.82% |
| S3 | 3.82% ± 0.88% | 3.62% ± 0.78% | 3.09% ± 0.69% |
| S4 | 3.97% ± 1.34% | 4.67% ± 1.68% | 3.31% ± 0.82% |
| S5 | 3.88% ± 0.84% | 4.15% ± 1.08% | 3.23% ± 0.60% |
| S6 | 3.89% ± 0.82% | 4.71% ± 1.31% | 3.41% ± 0.83% |
| S7 | 3.88% ± 1.31% | 4.51% ± 1.61% | 3.81% ± 1.25% |
| S8 | 2.77% ± 0.32% | 3.33% ± 0.39% | 2.61% ± 0.37% |
| Average | 3.74% ± 0.14% | 4.10% ± 0.18% | 3.25% ± 0.12% |
Figure 3(A) Examples of epidural space images with different distances between needle tip and spinal cord surface. G: labeled ground truth value (μm); P: prediction value (μm); Scale bar: 250 μm. (B) The distribution of the predicted absolute percentage errors and absolute error in testing fold 7 with 3000 testing images.
Figure 4Schematic of forward-view OCT endoscope system.
Figure 5Data acquisition process.