Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42481769›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026

Benchmarking deep learning pipelines for surgical instrument segmentation in endoscopic spine surgery: cross-dataset evaluation under deployment-realistic conditions.

Bong-Su Mun, Seok-In Jang, Sang-Min Park, Jiwon Park, Hyun-Jin Park, Ho-Joong Kim, Jin S Yeom

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Bong-Su MunDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine Center, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital and Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Republic of Korea.
Seok-In JangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spine Center, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital and Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Republic of Korea.
Sang-Min ParkDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea. psmini@snu.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6171-3256
Jiwon ParkDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Korea University Ansan Hospital and Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan, Republic of Korea.
Hyun-Jin ParkDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital and Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ho-Joong KimDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
Jin S YeomDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital and Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAutomated surgical instrument segmentation is a prerequisite for AI-assisted guidance in endoscopic spine surgery. Deployment-realistic comparisons of foundation-model and conventional deep learning architectures - accounting for the detector dependency of bbox-prompted models - remain lacking.

methodsSeven deep learning pipelines were evaluated for binary instrument segmentation: U-Net, Attention U-Net, U-Net++, SegFormer-B0, DeepLabV3+, nnU-Net, and a fully automatic two-stage foundation-model pipeline (MedSAM2-Tiny segmentor + YOLOv8-nano detector). Strict patient-level data splitting was applied across two independent datasets (SNUBH biportal, n = 56 patients; SEA uniportal, n = 60 patients) with three-tier testing (internal, temporal external, cross-dataset external) and two training variants (biportal-only; combined biportal-uniportal).

resultsWith biportal-only training, the fully automatic foundation-model pipeline ranked last on cross-dataset external testing (DSC 0.776; 0.737 under a strict empty-mask convention), about 9% points below DeepLabV3+ (0.865). The same MedSAM2-Tiny segmentor reached DSC 0.946 with ground-truth bounding-box prompts, leaving a 16.9-point oracle-to-deployment gap driven by detector domain mismatch: 61% missed detections and 39% box-localization error. With combined training, all seven pipelines exceeded DSC 0.94; nnU-Net was highest (0.978), and the foundation-model pipeline (0.962) was not significantly different from SegFormer-B0 (0.960) or DeepLabV3+ (0.958) after Bonferroni correction, although the small external sample does not establish equivalence. The improvement was driven primarily by detector rather than segmentor learning, and all seven main pipelines except the nnU-Net 5-fold ensemble met the 30 frames-per-second real-time threshold.

conclusionsFoundation-model two-stage pipeline performance depends critically on detector training data coverage; once the segmentor approaches its oracle ceiling, detector domain coverage becomes the limiting factor for fully automatic deployment. When combined training is feasible, foundation-model and conventional architectures converge to comparable accuracy, although these rankings are specific to the datasets studied and require validation on independent cohorts. Reporting deployment DSC alongside the ground-truth bounding-box upper bound is recommended for future surgical-segmentation benchmarks.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDeep learningDomain generalizationEndoscopic spine surgeryFoundation modelInstrument segmentationObject detection

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.