Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Predicting the quality of surgical exposure using spatial and procedural features from laparoscopic videos

  • 79 Accesses

Abstract

Purpose 

Evaluating the quality of surgical procedures is a major concern in minimally invasive surgeries. We propose a bottom-up approach based on the study of Sleeve Gastrectomy procedures, for which we analyze what we assume to be an important indicator of the surgical expertise: the exposure of the surgical scene. We first aim at predicting this indicator with features extracted from the laparoscopic video feed, and second to analyze how the extracted features describing the surgical practice influence this indicator.

Method 

Twenty-nine patients underwent Sleeve Gastrectomy performed by two confirmed surgeons in a monocentric study. Features were extracted from spatial and procedural annotations of the videos, and an expert surgeon evaluated the quality of the surgical exposure at specific instants. The features were used as input of a classifier (linear discriminant analysis followed by a support vector machine) to predict the expertise indicator. Features selected in different configurations of the algorithm were compared to understand their relationships with the surgical exposure and the surgeon’s practice.

Results 

The optimized algorithm giving the best performance used spatial features as input (\(\mathrm{Acc}=0.68, \mathrm{Sn}=0.72, \mathrm{Sp}=0.7\)). It also predicted equally the two classes of the indicator, despite their strong imbalance. Analyzing the selection of input features in the algorithm allowed a comparison of different configurations of the algorithm and showed a link between the surgical exposure and the surgeon’s practice.

Conclusion 

This preliminary study validates that a prediction of the surgical exposure from spatial features is possible. The analysis of the clusters of feature selected by the algorithm also shows encouraging results and potential clinical interpretations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. 1.

    The COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484

  2. 2.

    Babineau TJ, Becker J, Gibbons G, Sentovich S, Hess D, Robertson S, Stone M (2004) The cost of operative training for surgical residents. Arch Surg 139:366–370

  3. 3.

    Lalys F, Jannin P (2014) Surgical process modelling: a review. Int J CARS 9:495–511

  4. 4.

    Bouget D, Allan M, Stoyanov D, Jannin P (2017) Vision-based and marker-less surgical tool detection and tracking: a review of the literature. Med Image Anal 35:633–654

  5. 5.

    Loukas C (2018) Video content analysis of surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 32:553–568

  6. 6.

    Zia A, Sharma Y, Bettadapura V, Sarin EL, Ploetz T, Clements MA, Essa I (2016) Automated video-based assessment of surgical skills for training and evaluation in medical schools. Int J CARS 11:1623–1636

  7. 7.

    Wolf R, Medici M, Fiard G, Long J-A, Moreau-Gaudry A, Cinquin P, Voros S (2018) Comparison of the goals and MISTELS scores for the evaluation of surgeons on training benches. Int J CARS 13:95–103

  8. 8.

    Foster JD, Miskovic D, Allison AS, Conti JA, Ockrim J, Cooper EJ, Hanna GB, Francis NK (2016) Application of objective clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) in assessment of technical performance in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Tech Coloproctol 20:361–367

  9. 9.

    Vincent C, Taylor-Adams S, Chapman EJ, Hewett D, Prior S, Strange P, Tizzard A (2000) How to investigate and analyse clinical incidents: clinical risk unit and association of litigation and risk management protocol. BMJ 320:777–781

  10. 10.

    Gray RJ, Kahol K, Islam G, Smith M, Chapital A, Ferrara J (2012) High-fidelity, low-cost, automated method to assess laparoscopic skills objectively. J Surg Edu 69:335–339

  11. 11.

    Loukas C, Georgiou E (2016) Performance comparison of various feature detector-descriptors and temporal models for video-based assessment of laparoscopic skills. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 12:387–398

  12. 12.

    Fawaz HI, Forestier G, Weber J, Idoumghar L, Muller P-A (2018) Evaluating surgical skills from kinematic data using convolutional neural networks. 11073:214–221. arXiv:1806.02750 [cs]

  13. 13.

    Ganni S, Botden SMBI, Chmarra M, Goossens RHM, Jakimowicz JJ (2018) A software-based tool for video motion tracking in the surgical skills assessment landscape. Surg Endosc 32:2994–2999

  14. 14.

    Huaulmé A, Harada K, Forestier G, Mitsuishi M, Jannin P (2018) Sequential surgical signatures in micro-suturing task. Int J CARS 13:1419–1428

  15. 15.

    Iossa A, Abdelgawad M, Watkins BM, Silecchia G (2016) Leaks after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: overview of pathogenesis and risk factors. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401:757–766

  16. 16.

    Verhaeghe P, Dhahri A, Qassemyar Q, Regimbeau JM (2011) Technique de la gastrectomie longitudinale (sleeve gastrectomy) par laparoscopie. EMC. Techn Chir Appareil Dig 40:385

  17. 17.

    Garraud C, Gibaud B, Penet C, Gazuguel G, Dardenne G, Jannin P (2014) An ontology-based software suite for the analysis of surgical process model. In: Proceedings of Surgetica’2014, pp 243–245

  18. 18.

    Huaulmé A, Voros S, Riffaud L, Forestier G, Moreau-Gaudry A, Jannin P (2017) Distinguishing surgical behavior by sequential pattern discovery. J Biomed Inf 67:34–41

  19. 19.

    Fouard C, Deram A, Keraval Y, Promayon E (2012) CamiTK: a modular framework integrating visualization, image processing and biomechanical modeling. In: Payan Y (ed) Soft tissue biomechanical modeling for computer assisted surgery. Springer, Berlin, pp 323–354

  20. 20.

    Ojala T, Pietikäinen M, Mäenpää T (2001) A generalized local binary pattern operator for multiresolution gray scale and rotation invariant texture classification. In: Singh S, Murshed N, Kropatsch W (eds) Advances in pattern recognition–ICAPR 2001. Springer, Berlin, pp 399–408

  21. 21.

    Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M, Duchesnay É (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res 12:2825–2830

  22. 22.

    Cawley GC, Talbot NLC (2010) On over-fitting in model selection and subsequent selection bias in performance evaluation. J Mach Learn Res 11:2079–2107

  23. 23.

    Hossin M, Sulaiman MN (2015) A review on evaluation metrics for data classification evaluations. Int J Data Min Knowl Manag Process 5:01–11

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by French state funds managed by the ANR within the Investissements d’Avenir Programme (Labex CAMI) under reference ANR-11-LABX-0004. Authors thank the IRT b\(<>\)com for the provision of the software ‘Surgery Workflow Toolbox [annotate]’ used in this study.

Author information

Correspondence to Sandrine Voros.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Study ethics approval was obtained on May 24, 2018 (CECIC Rhône-Alpes-Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, IRB 5891)

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Derathé, A., Reche, F., Moreau-Gaudry, A. et al. Predicting the quality of surgical exposure using spatial and procedural features from laparoscopic videos. Int J CARS 15, 59–67 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-019-02072-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Video-based analysis
  • Surgical exposure
  • Surgical expertise
  • Laparoscopic surgery