| Literature DB >> 35991136 |
Yan Zhu1, Jiamiao Zhang1, Zhonglei Ji1, Wen Liu1, Mingyue Li1, Enhui Xia2, Jing Zhang1, Jianqing Wang1.
Abstract
This study was aimed at investigating the ultrasound based on deep learning algorithm to evaluate the rehabilitation effect of transumbilical laparoscopic single-site total hysterectomy on pelvic floor function in patients. The bilinear convolutional neural network (BCNN) structure was constructed in the ultrasound imaging system. The spatial transformer network (STN) was used to preserve image information. Two algorithms, BCNN-R and BCNN-S, were proposed to remove sensitive information after ultrasonic image processing, and then, subtle features of the image were identified and classified. 80 patients undergoing transumbilical laparoscopic single-site total hysterectomy in hospital were randomly divided into a control group and a treatment group, with 40 cases in each group. In the control group, conventional ultrasound was used to assess the image of pelvic floor function in patients undergoing laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS); in the observation group, ultrasound based on deep learning algorithm was used. The postoperative incision pain score, average postoperative anus exhaust time, average hospital stay, and postoperative satisfaction of the two groups were evaluated, respectively. The highest accuracy of constructed network BCNN-S was 88.98%; the highest recall rate of BCNN-R was 88.51%; the highest accuracy rate of BCNN-R was 97.34%. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and exhaust time were similar between the two groups, and the difference had no statistical significance (P > 0.05). The numerical rating scale (NRS) scores were compared, the observation group had less pain, the difference between the two groups had statistical significance (P < 0.05), and the postoperative recovery was good. The BCNN based on deep learning can realize the imaging of the uterus by ultrasound and realize the evaluation of pelvic floor function, and the probability of pelvic floor dysfunction is small, which is worthy of clinical promotion.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35991136 PMCID: PMC9385360 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1116332
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
NRS.
| Score | Symptoms |
|---|---|
| 0 | Painless |
| 1-3 | Mild pain, sleep unaffected |
| 4-6 | Moderate pain, sleep affected |
| 7-10 | Severe pain, sleep affected seriously |
Figure 1BCNN structure.
BCNN parameters.
| Layer name | Kernel | Layer name | Kernel |
|---|---|---|---|
| BCNN-R | BCNN-S | ||
| Conv 1 | 7 × 7, 64, stride 2 | Conv 1 | |
| Block 1 | 1 × 1, 64 | Fire 1-3 | 1 × 1, 3 × 3, 64 |
| 3 × 3, 64 | 1 × 1, 3 × 3, 64 | ||
| 1 × 1,256 | 1 × 1, 3 × 3, 256 | ||
| Block 2 | 1 × 1,128 | Fire 4-7 | 1 × 1, 3 × 3, 256 |
| 3 × 3,128 | 1 × 1, 3 × 3, 384 | ||
| 1 × 1,512 | 1 × 1, 3 × 3, 512 | ||
| Block 3 | 1 × 1,256 | 1 × 1, 3 × 3, 512 | |
| 3 × 3,256 | |||
| 1 × 1, 1024 | |||
| Block 4 | 1 × 1,512 | Fire 8 | 2 × 2, maxpool, stride 2 |
| 3 × 3,512 | 1 × 1, 3 × 3,512 | ||
| 1 × 1, 2048 | |||
| Pool | Outer product |
Figure 2The comparison results between training set and test set. (a) The processing results of the public dataset HC8 for ultrasonic images. (b) The processing results of JFU19 for ultrasonic images.
Figure 3BCNN-R and BCNN-S feature images. (a) The activation region shown in the BCNN-R feature image. (b) The activation region shown in the BCNN-S feature image. (c) The activation process of region classification by BCNN-R feature map. (d) The activation process of region classification by BCNN-S feature image.
Figure 4Performance comparison of algorithms. (a) Comparison results of four algorithms in accuracy. (b) Comparison results of four algorithms in recall. (c) Comparison results of four algorithms in precision.
Figure 5Performance comparison of algorithms. (a) The comparison between BCNN and UnetcsE algorithm in mDICE. (b) The comparison between BCNN and UnetcsE algorithm in mIoU.
Result comparison between the two groups under at rest and Valsalva state.
| Group | Number | BNSD | CSD | PUA | BND |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | At rest | 25.34 ± 3.12 | 31.87 ± 2.31 | 101.3 ± 8.41 | 7.12 ± 3.8 |
| Valsalva state | 19.87 ± 4.5 | 32.7 ± 3.18 | 121.87 ± 12.6 | 8.7 ± 1.31 | |
| Control group | At rest | 22.87 ± 2.8 | 31.87 ± 2.31 | 98.5 ± 7.86 | 6.1 ± 4.3 |
| Valsalva state | 18.17 ± 2.31 | 30.87 ± 3.17 | 119.7 ± 9.38 | 8.67 ± 2.2 |
Comparison of surgical conditions.
| Group | Number | Operation time (min) | NRS cores | Exhaust time (h) | Intraoperative blood loss (ml) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 40 | 87.4 ± 9.76 | 1.87 ± 0.31∗ | 30.3 ± 2.41 | 112.1 ± 10.8 |
| Control group | 40 | 80.1 ± 8.3 | 2.29 ± 0.15 | 32.5 ± 1.86 | 153.1 ± 18.3 |
|
| >0.05 | <0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
Note: ∗compared with the control group, P < 0.05.
Figure 6Comparison of hospitalization time and satisfaction between the two groups. (a) Comparison result of hospitalization time between the two groups. (b) Satisfaction score of two groups. ∗Compared with the control group, P < 0.05.
Figure 7Comparison of postoperative fever rate. ∗Compared with the control group, P < 0.05.