Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35941310›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Multicentric exploration of tool annotation in robotic surgery: lessons learned when starting a surgical artificial intelligence project.

Pieter De Backer, Jennifer A Eckhoff, Jente Simoens, Dolores T Müller, Charlotte Allaeys, Heleen Creemers, Amélie Hallemeesch, Kenzo Mestdagh, Charles Van Praet, Charlotte Debbaut and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Pieter De BackerORSI Academy, Proefhoevestraat 12, 9090, Melle, Belgium. pieter.de.backer@orsi.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9375-2353
Jennifer A EckhoffRobotic Innovation Laboratory, Department of General, Visceral, Tumor and Transplantsurgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jente SimoensORSI Academy, Proefhoevestraat 12, 9090, Melle, Belgium.
Dolores T MüllerRobotic Innovation Laboratory, Department of General, Visceral, Tumor and Transplantsurgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Charlotte AllaeysDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Heleen CreemersDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Amélie HallemeeschDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Kenzo MestdaghDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Charles Van PraetDepartment of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Charlotte DebbautIBiTech-Biommeda, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, and CRIG, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Karel DecaesteckerDepartment of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Christiane J BrunsRobotic Innovation Laboratory, Department of General, Visceral, Tumor and Transplantsurgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Ozanan MeirelesSurgical Artificial Intelligence and Innovation Laboratory, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.
Alexandre MottrieORSI Academy, Proefhoevestraat 12, 9090, Melle, Belgium.
Hans F FuchsRobotic Innovation Laboratory, Department of General, Visceral, Tumor and Transplantsurgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) holds tremendous potential to reduce surgical risks and improve surgical assessment. Machine learning, a subfield of AI, can be used to analyze surgical video and imaging data. Manual annotations provide veracity about the desired target features. Yet, methodological annotation explorations are limited to date. Here, we provide an exploratory analysis of the requirements and methods of instrument annotation in a multi-institutional team from two specialized AI centers and compile our lessons learned.

methodsWe developed a bottom-up approach for team annotation of robotic instruments in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), which was subsequently validated in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). Furthermore, instrument annotation methods were evaluated for their use in Machine Learning algorithms. Overall, we evaluated the efficiency and transferability of the proposed team approach and quantified performance metrics (e.g., time per frame required for each annotation modality) between RAPN and RAMIE.

resultsWe found a 0.05 Hz image sampling frequency to be adequate for instrument annotation. The bottom-up approach in annotation training and management resulted in accurate annotations and demonstrated efficiency in annotating large datasets. The proposed annotation methodology was transferrable between both RAPN and RAMIE. The average annotation time for RAPN pixel annotation ranged from 4.49 to 12.6 min per image; for vector annotation, we denote 2.92 min per image. Similar annotation times were found for RAMIE. Lastly, we elaborate on common pitfalls encountered throughout the annotation process.

conclusionsWe propose a successful bottom-up approach for annotator team composition, applicable to any surgical annotation project. Our results set the foundation to start AI projects for instrument detection, segmentation, and pose estimation. Due to the immense annotation burden resulting from spatial instrumental annotation, further analysis into sampling frequency and annotation detail needs to be conducted.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresArtificial IntelligenceHumansNephrectomyAnnotationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionInstrument segmentationSupervised machine learning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.