System events: readily accessible features for surgical phase detection

  • Anand Malpani
  • Colin Lea
  • Chi Chiung Grace Chen
  • Gregory D. Hager
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Surgical phase recognition using sensor data is challenging due to high variation in patient anatomy and surgeon-specific operating styles. Segmenting surgical procedures into constituent phases is of significant utility for resident training, education, self-review, and context-aware operating room technologies. Phase annotation is a highly labor-intensive task and would benefit greatly from automated solutions.

Methods

We propose a novel approach using system events—for example, activation of cautery tools—that are easily captured in most surgical procedures. Our method involves extracting event-based features over 90-s intervals and assigning a phase label to each interval. We explore three classification techniques: support vector machines, random forests, and temporal convolution neural networks. Each of these models independently predicts a label for each time interval. We also examine segmental inference using an approach based on the semi-Markov conditional random field, which jointly performs phase segmentation and classification. Our method is evaluated on a data set of 24 robot-assisted hysterectomy procedures.

Results

Our framework is able to detect surgical phases with an accuracy of 74 % using event-based features over a set of five different phases—ligation, dissection, colpotomy, cuff closure, and background. Precision and recall values for the cuff closure (Precision: 83 %, Recall: 98 %) and dissection (Precision: 75 %, Recall: 88 %) classes were higher than other classes. The normalized Levenshtein distance between predicted and ground truth phase sequence was 25 %.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that system events features are useful for automatically detecting surgical phase. Events contain phase information that cannot be obtained from motion data and that would require advanced computer vision algorithms to extract from a video. Many of these events are not specific to robotic surgery and can easily be recorded in non-robotic surgical modalities. In future work, we plan to combine information from system events, tool motion, and videos to automate phase detection in surgical procedures.

Keywords

Surgical phase detection System events Sensor data Surgical workflow analysis Robot-assisted surgery  Surgical task flow Surgical process modeling 

References

  1. 1.
    Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O’Reilly A, Oerline M, Carlin AM, Nunn AR, Dimick J, Banerjee M, Birkmeyer NJ (2013) Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 369(15):1434–1442. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1300625 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lalys F, Jannin P (2014) Surgical process modelling: a review. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 9(3):495–511. doi:10.1007/s11548-013-0940-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahmadi SA, Sielhorst T, Stauder R, Horn M, Feussner H, Navab N (2006) Recovery of surgical workflow without explicit models. In: Larsen R, Nielsen M, Sporring J (eds) Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention—MICCAI 2006. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4190. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 420–428Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Padoy N, Blum T, Essa I, Feussner H, Berger MO, Navab N (2007) A boosted segmentation method for surgical workflow analysis. In: Ayache N, Ourselin S, Maeder A (eds) Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention—MICCAI 2007. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4791. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 102–109Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blum T, Feussner H, Navab N (2010) Modeling and segmentation of surgical workflow from laparoscopic video. In: Jiang T, Navab N, Pluim JPW, Viergever MA (eds) Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention—MICCAI 2010. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6363. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 400–407Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Padoy N, Blum T, Ahmadi SA, Feussner H, Berger MO, Navab N (2012) Statistical modeling and recognition of surgical workflow. Med Image Anal 16(3):632–641. doi:10.1016/j.media.2010.10.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stauder R, Okur A, Peter L, Schneider A, Kranzfelder M, Feussner H, Navab N (2014) Random forests for phase detection in surgical workflow analysis. In: Stoyanov D, Collins DL, Sakuma I, Abolmaesumi P, Jannin P (eds) Information processing in computer-assisted interventions, no. 8498 in lecture notes in computer science, Springer International Publishing, pp 148–157Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DiPietro R, Stauder R, Kayis E, Schneider A, Kranzfelder M, Feussner H, Hager GD, Navab N (2015) Automated surgical-phase recognition using rapidly-deployable sensors. In: Modeling and monitoring of computer assisted interventions (M2CAI)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neumuth T, Straub G, Meixensberger J, Lemke HU, Burgert O (2006) Acquisition of process descriptions from surgical interventions. In: Bressan S, Kung J, Wagner R (eds) Database and expert systems applications, no. 4080 in lecture notes in computer science, Springer, Berlin, pp 602–611. doi:10.1007/11827405_59
  10. 10.
    Forestier G, Riffaud L, Jannin P (2015) Automatic phase prediction from low-level surgical activities. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10(6):833–841. doi:10.1007/s11548-015-1195-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katic D, Wekerle AL, Gartner F, Kenngott H, Muller-Stich BP, Dillmann R, Speidel S (2014) Knowledge-driven formalization of laparoscopic surgeries for rule-based intraoperative context-aware assistance. In: Stoyanov D, Collins DL, Sakuma I, Abolmaesumi P, Jannin P (eds) Information processing in computer-assisted intervention. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 8498. Springer, Switzerland, pp 158–167Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Twinanda AP, Marescaux J, Mathelin Md, Padoy N (2015) Classification approach for automatic laparoscopic video database organization. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. doi:10.1007/s11548-015-1183-4
  13. 13.
    Rosen J, Brown J, Chang L, Sinanan M, Hannaford B (2006) Generalized approach for modeling minimally invasive surgery as a stochastic process using a discrete Markov model. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53(3):399–413. doi:10.1109/TBME.2005.869771 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reiley CE, Lin HC, Varadarajan B, Vagvolgyi B, Khudanpur S, Yuh DD, Hager GD (2008) Automatic recognition of surgical motions using statistical modeling for capturing variability. Stud Health Technol Inform 132:396–401PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Varadarajan B (2011) Learning and inference algorithms for dynamical system models of dextrous motion, Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haro BB, Zappella L, Vidal R (2012) Surgical gesture classification from video data. In: Ayache N, Delingette H, Golland P, Mori K (eds) Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention—MICCAI 2012. Springer, Berlin, pp 34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zappella L, Bejar B, Hager G, Vidal R (2013) Surgical gesture classification from video and kinematic data. Med Image Anal 17(7):732–745. doi:10.1016/j.media.2013.04.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tao L, Zappella L, Hager GD, Vidal R (2013) Surgical gesture segmentation and recognition. In: Mori K, Sakuma I, Sato Y, Barillot C, Navab N (eds) Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention—MICCAI 2013. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 8151. Springer, Berlin, pp 339–346Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lea C, Vidal R, Hager GD (2016) Learning convolutional action primitives for fine-grained action recognition. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Stockholm (accepted)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 46(1):5–32. doi:10.1023/A:1010933404324 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lea C, Reiter A, Vidal R, Hager GD (2016) Efficient segmental inference for spatiotemporal modeling of fine-grained actions. arXiv:1602.02995 [cs]
  22. 22.
    Sarawagi S, Cohen WW (2005) Semi-Markov conditional random fields for information extraction. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 17. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1185–1192. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/2648-semi-markov-conditional-random-fields-for-information-extraction.pdf
  23. 23.
    Chen CCG, Tanner E, Malpani A, Vedula SS, Fader A, Scheib S, Hager GD (2015) Warm-up before robotic hysterectomy does not improve trainee operative performance: a randomized trial. In: American urogynecologic society annual meeting, pp 396–401Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    DiMaio SP, Hasser C (2008), The da Vinci research interface, http://www.midasjournal.org/browse/publication/622
  25. 25.
    Navarro G (2001) A guided tour to approximate string matching. ACM Comput Surv 33(1):31–88. doi:10.1145/375360.375365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anand Malpani
    • 1
  • Colin Lea
    • 1
  • Chi Chiung Grace Chen
    • 2
  • Gregory D. Hager
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations