| Literature DB >> 35693313 |
Anas Taha1, Bassey Enodien2, Daniel M Frey2, Stephanie Taha-Mehlitz3.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence simulates human intelligence in machines that have undergone programming to make them think like human beings and imitate their activities. Artificial intelligence has dominated the medical sector to perform various patient diagnosis activities and improve communication between professionals and patients. The main goal of this study is to perform a scoping review to evaluate the development of artificial intelligence in all forms of hernia surgery except the diaphragm and upside-down hernia.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; incisional hernia; inguinal hernia; scoping review; ventral hernia
Year: 2022 PMID: 35693313 PMCID: PMC9178189 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.908014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Surg ISSN: 2296-875X
Figure 1Inclusion and exclusion criteria for this study.
Main themes of included studies and characteristics of included papers.
| Author | Years | Country | Primary Theme |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI in Inguinal Hernia Surgery | |||
| Cui, Zhao, and Chen ( | 2021 | China | CNN is effective in detecting vas deferens during inguinal hernia surgery |
| Gao, Zagadailov, and Merchant ( | 2021 | USA | The Artificial Neural Network (ANN) is effective in detecting patient outcomes |
| O'Brien et al. ( | 2021 | Multiple countries | The neural network model effectively predicts infection risks after inguinal hernia surgery. |
| Qin et al. ( | 2021 | Multiple countries | Deep Neural Networks facilitate the hierarchical estimation of surgical states. |
| Ramshaw et al. ( | 2017 | USA | Machine learning algorithms are vital in detecting wound infection during surgery. |
| Alonso-Silverio et al. ( | 2018 | Mexico | A laparoscopic training system using artificial intelligence had the potential to increase trainee confidence. |
| Baloul et al. ( | 2020 | USA | Machine Learning (ML) algorithms enhance the prediction of trainees’ training levels via video commentaries. |
| AI in Abdominal Hernia Surgery | |||
| Muysoms et al. ( | 2012 | Europe | AI application is evident since it facilitated the development of an online platform for registering and measuring ventral hernia surgery outcomes. |
| López-Cano et al. ( | 2021 | Spain | AI application could enhance the quality of care given to abdominal hernia patients |
| Elhage et al. ( | 2021 | China | Computed tomography images were more accurate than expert surgeons’ judgments in predicting surgical complexity. |
| Ramshaw ( | 2017 | USA | AI could lead to sustainable healthcare |
| Friedrich et al. ( | 2019 | Germany | NANEP model is effective in differentiating beginner and expert surgeons |
| Wang et al. ( | 2022 | USA | An automated abdominal tissue classification algorithm attained extensive accuracy compared to previous algorithms. |
| AI in Incisional Hernia Surgery | |||
| Kallinowski et al. ( | 2021 | Multiple countries | Preoperative computed tomography was effective in predicting hernia recurrence. |
| Madani and Feldman ( | 2021 | Multiple countries | AI, via ML, could assist in deriving intraoperative decisions. |
| Zipper et al. ( | 2020 | Germany | AI is a practical approach for improving the technical abilities of surgeons. |
| Cole et al. ( | 2021 | China | MI-CAIM approach showcased the potential for improving patient risk stratification |
| Licari et al. ( | 2019 | Italy | The support vector model effectively predicted the risk factors triggering recurrences after incisional hernia surgery. |
| Robotics in Hernia Surgery | |||
| Ozmen, Ozmen, and Koç ( | 2021 | Switzerland | AI can enhance computer vision and prompt image-guided hernia surgeries |
| Donkor et al. ( | 2017 | Europe | Robotics in hernia surgery provides opportunities for minimally-invasive surgeries while simultaneously reducing costs and length of hospital stay |
Data types, sizes, and evaluation metrics of included articles.
| Author | Used Datatype | Dataset Size | Test Size | ML Type | Evaluation Metrics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cui, Zhao, and Chen ( | Videos from 35 inguinal surgery patients | 2,600 images | 1,200 images and 6 video clips | CNN | 94.6% accuracy and 92.3% precision |
| Gao, Zagadailov, and Merchant ( | Data from ACSNSQI Program | 2,000 images | 1,500 images | ANN | ANN and logistic regression evaluations were consistent |
| O'Brien et al. ( | Veterans receiving hernia repair | 96, 435 surgeries | 40 patients | Neural Network Model | 90% accuracy |
| Qin et al. ( | RAS Dataset HERNIA -20 | 25,000 images | 10 system events | HESS-DNN | 80.4% accuracy |
| Ramshaw et al. ( | CQI measurement after inguinal hernia repair | 93 patients | 93 patients | CQI model | 48% of the patients showcased significant improvements |
| Alonso-Silverio et al. ( | Two training sets | Four expert surgeons | Sixteen trainees | Laparoscopic Box Trainer system using AI and ANN | 90.9% accuracy |
| Baloul et al. ( | ML in the context of structured video commentary | 13 short operative video clips | 81 surgical residents | TensorFlow and Keras models | 40% improvement |
| Muysoms et al. ( | Online registry | Not applicable | Not applicable | 3-dimensional numerical quality of life score | EuraHS website was effective |
| López-Cano et al. ( | Explicit criteria for prioritizing waiting lists | 92 patients | 92 patients | AI explicit prioritization criteria | The criteria was accurate in separating waiting lists |
| Elhage et al. ( | 3 DLM models | 369 patients | 9,303 images | Computed tomography | 81.3% accuracy compared to surgeon predictions |
| Ramshaw ( | Assorted ML approaches | Not applicable | Not applicable- | Assorted AI models | The method demonstrated high accuracy |
| Friedrich et al. ( | High-fidelity simulation approach | Internship students and experts | Internship students and experts | NANEP model | The model demonstrated significant accuracy levels |
| Wang et al. ( | Fully automated abdominal tissue classifier algorithm | 40 bovine and porcine biological sample | 40 bovine and porcine biological sample | Multilayer Perception and CNN | 91,14% accuracy and 91,06% precision |
| Kallinowski et al. ( | Bench test | 1 patient | 1 patient | Computed tomography | The approach was accurate |
| Madani and Feldman ( | Multiple machine learning approaches | Not applicable | Not applicable- | Multiple ML algorithms | Effectiveness of the approaches |
| Zipper et al. ( | Two component silicones | 6 beginners and 6 experts | 6 beginners and six experts | High-fidelity model | Reliability of 81,1% to 97,4% |
| Cole et al. ( | Clinical decision support tool | 93,024 patients | 93,024 patients | MI-CAIM | Model reduced operative time |
| Licari et al. ( | Recurrence risk factors for incisional hernia surgery | 154 patients | 154 patients | Support vector model | 86.2% Sensitivity and 86.6% accuracy |
| Ozmen, Ozmen, and Koç ( | Various AI tools and Robots | Not applicable | Not applicable | Assorted AI models | Successful in hernia surgery |
| Donkor et al. ( | Robotics in hernia surgery | Not applicable | Not applicable | Various robotic models | Achieved minimal invasion |