Why the study?
Intra-operative remaining surgery duration prediction is challenging in endoscopic pituitary surgery due to variable workflow sequences and optional steps leading to high duration variability.
Does PitRSDNet improve the prediction of intra-operative remaining surgery duration in endoscopic pituitary surgery compared to previous methods?
Does PitRSDNet improve the prediction of intra-operative remaining surgery duration in endoscopic pituitary surgery compared to previous methods?
PitRSDNet improves the prediction of remaining surgery duration in endoscopic pituitary surgery, which could aid in efficient scheduling and patient care.
May improve RSD estimates in pituitary surgery; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Accurate intra-operative Remaining Surgery Duration (RSD) predictions allow for anaesthetists to more accurately decide when to administer anaesthetic agents and drugs, as well as to notify hospital staff to send in the next patient. Therefore, RSD plays an important role in improved patient care and minimising surgical theatre costs via efficient scheduling. In endoscopic pituitary surgery, it is uniquely challenging due to variable workflow sequences with a selection of optional steps contributing to high variability in surgery duration. This article presents PitRSDNet for predicting RSD during pituitary surgery, a spatio-temporal neural network model that learns from historical data focusing on workflow sequences. PitRSDNet integrates workflow knowledge into RSD prediction in two forms: (1) multi-task learning for concurrently predicting step and RSD; and (2) incorporating prior steps as context in temporal learning and inference. PitRSDNet is trained and evaluated on a new endoscopic pituitary surgery dataset with 88 videos to show competitive performance improvements over previous statistical and machine learning methods. The findings also highlight how PitRSDNet improves RSD precision on outlier cases utilising the knowledge of prior steps.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wijekoon et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: