Literature DB >> 35927354

Computer-aided anatomy recognition in intrathoracic and -abdominal surgery: a systematic review.

R B den Boer1, C de Jongh1, W T E Huijbers1, T J M Jaspers2, J P W Pluim2, R van Hillegersberg1, M Van Eijnatten2, J P Ruurda3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery is complex and associated with substantial learning curves. Computer-aided anatomy recognition, such as artificial intelligence-based algorithms, may improve anatomical orientation, prevent tissue injury, and improve learning curves. The study objective was to provide a comprehensive overview of current literature on the accuracy of anatomy recognition algorithms in intrathoracic and -abdominal surgery.
METHODS: This systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Pubmed, Embase, and IEEE Xplore were searched for original studies up until January 2022 on computer-aided anatomy recognition, without requiring intraoperative imaging or calibration equipment. Extracted features included surgical procedure, study population and design, algorithm type, pre-training methods, pre- and post-processing methods, data augmentation, anatomy annotation, training data, testing data, model validation strategy, goal of the algorithm, target anatomical structure, accuracy, and inference time.
RESULTS: After full-text screening, 23 out of 7124 articles were included. Included studies showed a wide diversity, with six possible recognition tasks in 15 different surgical procedures, and 14 different accuracy measures used. Risk of bias in the included studies was high, especially regarding patient selection and annotation of the reference standard. Dice and intersection over union (IoU) scores of the algorithms ranged from 0.50 to 0.98 and from 74 to 98%, respectively, for various anatomy recognition tasks. High-accuracy algorithms were typically trained using larger datasets annotated by expert surgeons and focused on less-complex anatomy. Some of the high-accuracy algorithms were developed using pre-training and data augmentation.
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of included anatomy recognition algorithms varied substantially, ranging from moderate to good. Solid comparison between algorithms was complicated by the wide variety of applied methodology, target anatomical structures, and reported accuracy measures. Computer-aided intraoperative anatomy recognition is an upcoming research discipline, but still at its infancy. Larger datasets and methodological guidelines are required to improve accuracy and clinical applicability in future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021264226.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anatomy recognition; Artificial intelligence; Computer vision; Minimally invasive surgery

Year:  2022        PMID: 35927354     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09421-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   3.453


  26 in total

Review 1.  Performance of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Cesare Hassan; Marco Spadaccini; Andrea Iannone; Roberta Maselli; Manol Jovani; Viveksandeep Thoguluva Chandrasekar; Giulio Antonelli; Honggang Yu; Miguel Areia; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Pradeep Bhandari; Prateek Sharma; Douglas K Rex; Thomas Rösch; Michael Wallace; Alessandro Repici
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach.

Authors:  Edoardo Aromataris; Ritin Fernandez; Christina M Godfrey; Cheryl Holly; Hanan Khalil; Patraporn Tungpunkom
Journal:  Int J Evid Based Healthc       Date:  2015-09

Review 3.  Deep learning visual analysis in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

Authors:  Roi Anteby; Nir Horesh; Shelly Soffer; Yaniv Zager; Yiftach Barash; Imri Amiel; Danny Rosin; Mordechai Gutman; Eyal Klang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  The impact of pre- and post-image processing techniques on deep learning frameworks: A comprehensive review for digital pathology image analysis.

Authors:  Massimo Salvi; U Rajendra Acharya; Filippo Molinari; Kristen M Meiburger
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2020-11-21       Impact factor: 4.589

5.  Coming to Terms with the Black Box Problem: How to Justify AI Systems in Health Care.

Authors:  Ryan Marshall Felder
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 2.683

6.  Patch-based classification of gallbladder wall vascularity from laparoscopic images using deep learning.

Authors:  Constantinos Loukas; Maximos Frountzas; Dimitrios Schizas
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 2.924

7.  Natural history and optimal treatment strategy of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: Analysis using a nomogram and Markov decision model.

Authors:  Youngmin Han; Jin-Young Jang; Moon Young Oh; Hyeong Seok Kim; Yoonhyeong Byun; Jae Seung Kang; Se Hyung Kim; Kyoung-Bun Lee; Hongbeom Kim; Wooil Kwon
Journal:  J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 7.027

8.  Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy: Results From 312 Cases.

Authors:  Pieter C van der Sluis; Jelle P Ruurda; Sylvia van der Horst; Lucas Goense; Richard van Hillegersberg
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 4.330

9.  Artificial Intelligence for Intraoperative Guidance: Using Semantic Segmentation to Identify Surgical Anatomy During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Amin Madani; Babak Namazi; Maria S Altieri; Daniel A Hashimoto; Angela Maria Rivera; Philip H Pucher; Allison Navarrete-Welton; Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; L Michael Brunt; Allan Okrainec; Adnan Alseidi
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 13.787

10.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

Authors:  Matthew J Page; Joanne E McKenzie; Patrick M Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Tammy C Hoffmann; Cynthia D Mulrow; Larissa Shamseer; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Elie A Akl; Sue E Brennan; Roger Chou; Julie Glanville; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Manoj M Lalu; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth W Loder; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Steve McDonald; Luke A McGuinness; Lesley A Stewart; James Thomas; Andrea C Tricco; Vivian A Welch; Penny Whiting; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2021-03-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.