Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38141453›Full record

ReviewMedical image analysis2024

Placental vessel segmentation and registration in fetoscopy: Literature review and MICCAI FetReg2021 challenge findings.

Sophia Bano, Alessandro Casella, Francisco Vasconcelos, Abdul Qayyum, Abdesslam Benzinou, Moona Mazher, Fabrice Meriaudeau, Chiara Lena, Ilaria Anita Cintorrino, Gaia Romana De Paolis and 21 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical image analysis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Autonomous Magnetic Navigation in Endoscopic Image Mosaics.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
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

31 authors at 17 institutions in 11 countries.

Sophia BanoWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS) and Department of Computer Science, University College London, UK. Electronic address: sophia.bano@ucl.ac.uk.
Alessandro CasellaDepartment of Advanced Robotics, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Italy; Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Italy.
Francisco VasconcelosWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS) and Department of Computer Science, University College London, UK.
Abdul QayyumENIB, UMR CNRS 6285 LabSTICC, 29238, France.
Abdesslam BenzinouENIB, UMR CNRS 6285 LabSTICC, 29238, France.
Moona MazherDepartment of Computer Engineering and Mathematics, University Rovira i Virgili, Spain.
Fabrice MeriaudeauImViA Laboratory, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, France.
Chiara LenaDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Italy.
Ilaria Anita CintorrinoDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Italy.
Gaia Romana De PaolisDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Italy.
Jessica BiagioliDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Italy.
Daria GrechishnikovaPhysics Department, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia.
Jing JiaoFudan University, China.
Bizhe BaiMedical Computer Vision and Robotics Group, Department of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, University of Toronto, Canada.
Yanyan QiaoShanghai MicroPort MedBot (Group) Co., Ltd, China.
Binod BhattaraiWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS) and Department of Computer Science, University College London, UK.
Rebati Raman GaireNepAL Applied Mathematics and Informatics Institute for Research, Nepal.
Ronast SubediNepAL Applied Mathematics and Informatics Institute for Research, Nepal.
Eduard VazquezRedev Technology, UK.
Szymon PłotkaSano Center for Computational Medicine, Poland; Quantitative Healthcare Analysis Group, Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Aneta LisowskaSano Center for Computational Medicine, Poland.
Arkadiusz SitekSano Center for Computational Medicine, Poland; Center for Advanced Medical Computing and Simulation, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
George AttilakosFetal Medicine Unit, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Wing, University College London Hospital, UK; EGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, UK.
Ruwan WimalasunderaFetal Medicine Unit, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Wing, University College London Hospital, UK; EGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, UK.
Anna L DavidFetal Medicine Unit, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Wing, University College London Hospital, UK; EGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, UK; Department of Development and Regeneration, University Hospital Leuven, Belgium.
Dario PaladiniDepartment of Fetal and Perinatal Medicine, Istituto "Giannina Gaslini", Italy.
Jan DeprestEGA Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, UK; Department of Development and Regeneration, University Hospital Leuven, Belgium.
Elena De MomiDepartment of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Italy.
Leonardo S MattosDepartment of Advanced Robotics, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Italy.
Sara MocciaThe BioRobotics Institute and Department of Excellence in Robotics and AI, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Italy.
Danail StoyanovWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS) and Department of Computer Science, University College London, UK.
Politecnico di Milano · ITWellcome / EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences · GBUniversity College Hospital · GBCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRInstitute for Social and Environmental Research-Nepal · NPItalian Institute of Technology · ITFudan University · CNHarvard University · USInstitute for Reproductive Health · USIstituto Giannina Gaslini · ITLomonosov Moscow State University · RUMicroPort (China) · CNQuantitative BioSciences · USScuola Superiore Sant'Anna · ITUniversitat Rovira i Virgili · ESUniversité Bourgogne Franche-Comté · FRUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fetoscopy laser photocoagulation is a widely adopted procedure for treating Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome (TTTS). The procedure involves photocoagulation pathological anastomoses to restore a physiological blood exchange among twins. The procedure is particularly challenging, from the surgeon's side, due to the limited field of view, poor manoeuvrability of the fetoscope, poor visibility due to amniotic fluid turbidity, and variability in illumination. These challenges may lead to increased surgery time and incomplete ablation of pathological anastomoses, resulting in persistent TTTS. Computer-assisted intervention (CAI) can provide TTTS surgeons with decision support and context awareness by identifying key structures in the scene and expanding the fetoscopic field of view through video mosaicking. Research in this domain has been hampered by the lack of high-quality data to design, develop and test CAI algorithms. Through the Fetoscopic Placental Vessel Segmentation and Registration (FetReg2021) challenge, which was organized as part of the MICCAI2021 Endoscopic Vision (EndoVis) challenge, we released the first large-scale multi-center TTTS dataset for the development of generalized and robust semantic segmentation and video mosaicking algorithms with a focus on creating drift-free mosaics from long duration fetoscopy videos. For this challenge, we released a dataset of 2060 images, pixel-annotated for vessels, tool, fetus and background classes, from 18 in-vivo TTTS fetoscopy procedures and 18 short video clips of an average length of 411 frames for developing placental scene segmentation and frame registration for mosaicking techniques. Seven teams participated in this challenge and their model performance was assessed on an unseen test dataset of 658 pixel-annotated images from 6 fetoscopic procedures and 6 short clips. For the segmentation task, overall baseline performed was the top performing (aggregated mIoU of 0.6763) and was the best on the vessel class (mIoU of 0.5817) while team RREB was the best on the tool (mIoU of 0.6335) and fetus (mIoU of 0.5178) classes. For the registration task, overall the baseline performed better than team SANO with an overall mean 5-frame SSIM of 0.9348. Qualitatively, it was observed that team SANO performed better in planar scenarios, while baseline was better in non-planner scenarios. The detailed analysis showed that no single team outperformed on all 6 test fetoscopic videos. The challenge provided an opportunity to create generalized solutions for fetoscopic scene understanding and mosaicking. In this paper, we present the findings of the FetReg2021 challenge, alongside reporting a detailed literature review for CAI in TTTS fetoscopy. Through this challenge, its analysis and the release of multi-center fetoscopic data, we provide a benchmark for future research in this field.

Indexed as

Fetofetal TransfusionPlacentaAlgorithmsFemaleFetoscopyFetusHumansPregnancyFetoscopyPlacental scene segmentationSurgical data scienceVideo mosaicking

Identifiers

PMID38141453
PMCPMC11162867
OpenAlexW4389990429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.