Automated operative workflow analysis of endoscopic pituitary surgery using machine learning: development and preclinical evaluation (IDEAL stage 0).

artificial intelligence computer vision endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery machine learning neural networks pituitary adenoma pituitary surgery surgical workflow

Journal

Journal of neurosurgery
ISSN: 1933-0693
Titre abrégé: J Neurosurg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0253357

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 Nov 2021
Historique:
received: 08 04 2021
accepted: 15 06 2021
entrez: 5 11 2021
pubmed: 6 11 2021
medline: 6 11 2021
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Surgical workflow analysis involves systematically breaking down operations into key phases and steps. Automatic analysis of this workflow has potential uses for surgical training, preoperative planning, and outcome prediction. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) and computer vision have allowed accurate automated workflow analysis of operative videos. In this Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study (IDEAL) stage 0 study, the authors sought to use Touch Surgery for the development and validation of an ML-powered analysis of phases and steps in the endoscopic transsphenoidal approach (eTSA) for pituitary adenoma resection, a first for neurosurgery. The surgical phases and steps of 50 anonymized eTSA operative videos were labeled by expert surgeons. Forty videos were used to train a combined convolutional and recurrent neural network model by Touch Surgery. Ten videos were used for model evaluation (accuracy, F1 score), comparing the phase and step recognition of surgeons to the automatic detection of the ML model. The longest phase was the sellar phase (median 28 minutes), followed by the nasal phase (median 22 minutes) and the closure phase (median 14 minutes). The longest steps were step 5 (tumor identification and excision, median 17 minutes); step 3 (posterior septectomy and removal of sphenoid septations, median 14 minutes); and step 4 (anterior sellar wall removal, median 10 minutes). There were substantial variations within the recorded procedures in terms of video appearances, step duration, and step order, with only 50% of videos containing all 7 steps performed sequentially in numerical order. Despite this, the model was able to output accurate recognition of surgical phases (91% accuracy, 90% F1 score) and steps (76% accuracy, 75% F1 score). In this IDEAL stage 0 study, ML techniques have been developed to automatically analyze operative videos of eTSA pituitary surgery. This technology has previously been shown to be acceptable to neurosurgical teams and patients. ML-based surgical workflow analysis has numerous potential uses-such as education (e.g., automatic indexing of contemporary operative videos for teaching), improved operative efficiency (e.g., orchestrating the entire surgical team to a common workflow), and improved patient outcomes (e.g., comparison of surgical techniques or early detection of adverse events). Future directions include the real-time integration of Touch Surgery into the live operative environment as an IDEAL stage 1 (first-in-human) study, and further development of underpinning ML models using larger data sets.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34740198
doi: 10.3171/2021.6.JNS21923
pii: 2021.6.JNS21923
pmc: PMC10243668
doi:
pii:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1-8

Références

Neurosurgery. 2004 Oct;55(4):933-40; discussion 940-1
pubmed: 15458602
Neurosurgery. 2010 Nov;67(5):1205-12
pubmed: 20871457
Surg Endosc. 2021 Jul;35(7):4008-4015
pubmed: 32720177
Ann Surg. 2016 Jul;264(1):32-3
pubmed: 26756757
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Apr 5;2(4):e191860
pubmed: 30951163
HNO. 2006 Jul;54(7):528-35
pubmed: 16328205
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 2;3(3):e201664
pubmed: 32227178
Ann Surg. 2022 Jan 1;275(1):73-79
pubmed: 33856386
Ann Surg. 2018 Jul;268(1):70-76
pubmed: 29389679
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018 Mar;13(3):443-455
pubmed: 29380122
Laryngoscope. 2007 Apr;117(4):699-705
pubmed: 17334263
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2017 Jan;36(1):86-97
pubmed: 27455522
J Neurosurg. 2005 Nov;103(5):789-93
pubmed: 16304981
Neurosurgery. 2004 Sep;55(3):539-47; discussion 547-50
pubmed: 15335421
Ann Surg. 2019 Feb;269(2):211-220
pubmed: 29697448
World Neurosurg. 2021 Feb;146:e724-e730
pubmed: 33248306
Surg Endosc. 2015 Sep;29(9):2620-7
pubmed: 25480611
Neuroendocrinology. 2010;92 Suppl 1:102-6
pubmed: 20829628
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Aug;24(8):516-21
pubmed: 25947330
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2020 Apr;15(4):673-680
pubmed: 32040704
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Mar 1;27(3):457-470
pubmed: 31794016
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009 Apr;19 Suppl 1:S117-22
pubmed: 19021467
Surg Endosc. 2018 Feb;32(2):553-568
pubmed: 29075965
Surg Endosc. 2008 Jan;22(1):107-11
pubmed: 17483993
Ann Surg. 2021 Apr 1;273(4):684-693
pubmed: 33201088
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2019 Apr;28(2):82-90
pubmed: 30849261
Neurosurg Rev. 2020 Oct;43(5):1235-1253
pubmed: 31422572
Ann Surg. 2019 Sep;270(3):414-421
pubmed: 31274652
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2014 May;9(3):495-511
pubmed: 24014322
World Neurosurg. 2020 Jun;138:e627-e633
pubmed: 32179185
Neurosurgery. 2012 Nov;71(5):916-24; discussion 924-6
pubmed: 22902334
Pituitary. 2017 Oct;20(5):489-498
pubmed: 28884415
Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2012 Oct;23(4):555-69
pubmed: 23040743
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Oct;2(10):e537-e548
pubmed: 33328048
Circulation. 2015 Jan 13;131(2):211-9
pubmed: 25561516
JAMA Surg. 2019 May 1;154(5):381-389
pubmed: 30673072
Nat Med. 2019 Jan;25(1):44-56
pubmed: 30617339
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2017 Feb;12(2):325-338
pubmed: 27573276
J Neurosurg. 2001 Dec;95(6):1083-96
pubmed: 11765830
Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004 Jan;56(1):71-8
pubmed: 23120037
Pituitary. 2008;11(4):385-90
pubmed: 18286374

Auteurs

Danyal Z Khan (DZ)

1Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London.
2Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London.

Imanol Luengo (I)

3Digital Surgery Ltd., Medtronic, London, United Kingdom.

Santiago Barbarisi (S)

3Digital Surgery Ltd., Medtronic, London, United Kingdom.

Carole Addis (C)

3Digital Surgery Ltd., Medtronic, London, United Kingdom.

Lucy Culshaw (L)

3Digital Surgery Ltd., Medtronic, London, United Kingdom.

Neil L Dorward (NL)

1Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London.

Pinja Haikka (P)

3Digital Surgery Ltd., Medtronic, London, United Kingdom.

Abhiney Jain (A)

1Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London.

Karen Kerr (K)

3Digital Surgery Ltd., Medtronic, London, United Kingdom.

Chan Hee Koh (CH)

1Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London.
2Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London.

Hugo Layard Horsfall (H)

1Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London.
2Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London.

William Muirhead (W)

1Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London.
2Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London.

Paolo Palmisciano (P)

4Department of Neurosurgery, Trauma Center, Gamma Knife Center, Cannizzaro Hospital, Catania, Italy; and.

Baptiste Vasey (B)

5Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.

Danail Stoyanov (D)

2Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London.
3Digital Surgery Ltd., Medtronic, London, United Kingdom.

Hani J Marcus (HJ)

1Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London.
2Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London.

Classifications MeSH