Author: Mohamadipanah, Hossein; Kearse, LaDonna; Witt, Anna; Wise, Brett; Yang, Su; Goll, Cassidi; Pugh, Carla
Title: Can Deep Learning Algorithms Help Identify Surgical Workflow and Techniques? Cord-id: kqifqqhg Document date: 2021_8_13
ID: kqifqqhg
Snippet: BACKGROUND Surgical videos are now being used for performance review and educational purposes; however, broad use is still limited due to time constraints. To make video review more efficient, we implemented Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms to detect surgical workflow and technical approaches. METHODS Participants (N = 200) performed a simulated open bowel repair. The operation included two major phases: (1) Injury Identification and (2) Suture Repair. Accordingly, a phase detection algor
Document: BACKGROUND Surgical videos are now being used for performance review and educational purposes; however, broad use is still limited due to time constraints. To make video review more efficient, we implemented Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms to detect surgical workflow and technical approaches. METHODS Participants (N = 200) performed a simulated open bowel repair. The operation included two major phases: (1) Injury Identification and (2) Suture Repair. Accordingly, a phase detection algorithm (MobileNetV2+GRU) was implemented to automatically detect the two phases using video data. In addition, participants were noted to use three different technical approaches when running the bowel: (1) use of both hands, (2) use of one hand and one tool, or (3) use of two tools. To discern the three technical approaches, an object detection (YOLOv3) algorithm was implemented to recognize objects that were commonly used during the Injury Identification phase (hands versus tools). RESULTS The phase detection algorithm achieved high precision (recall) when segmenting the two phases: Injury Identification (86 ± 9% [81 ± 12%]) and Suture Repair (81 ± 6% [81 ± 16%]). When evaluating three technical approaches in running the bowel, the object detection algorithm achieved high average precisions (Hands [99.32%] and Tools [94.47%]). The three technical approaches showed no difference in execution time (Kruskal-Wallis Test: P= 0.062) or injury identification (not missing an injury) (Chi-squared: P= 0.998). CONCLUSIONS The AI algorithms showed high precision when segmenting surgical workflow and identifying technical approaches. Automation of these techniques for surgical video databases has great potential to facilitate efficient performance review.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- Try single phrases listed below for: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date