Colonoscope retraction technique and predicting adenoma detection rate: a multicenter study

Computer-aided quality assessment of endoscopist competence during colonoscopy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopists' competence can vary widely, as shown in the variation in the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Computer-aided quality assessment (CAQ) can automatically assess performance during individual procedures. In this review we identified and described different CAQ systems for colonoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was done using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus based on 3 blocks of terms according to the inclusion criteria: colonoscopy, competence assessment, and automatic evaluation. Articles were systematically reviewed by 2 reviewers, first by abstract and then in full text. The methodological quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).

RESULTS

Of 12,575 identified studies, 6831 remained after removal of duplicates and 6806 did not pass the eligibility criteria and were excluded, leaving 25 studies, of which 13 studies were included in the final analysis. Five categories of CAQ systems were identified: withdrawal speedometer (7 studies), endoscope movement analysis (3 studies), effective withdrawal time (1 study), fold examination quality (1 study), and visual gaze pattern (1 study). The withdrawal speedometer was the only CAQ system that tested its feedback by examining changes in ADR. Three studies observed an improvement in ADR, and 2 studies did not. The methodological quality of the studies was high (mean MERSQI, 15.2 points; maximum, 18 points).

CONCLUSIONS

Thirteen studies developed or tested CAQ systems, most frequently by correlating it to the ADR. Only 5 studies tested feedback by implementing the CAQ system. A meta-analysis was impossible because of the heterogeneous study designs, and more studies are warranted.

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Acquisition and usage of robotic surgical data for machine learning analysis

BACKGROUND

The increasing use of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has led to the need for new methods of assessing whether new surgeons are qualified to perform RAS, without the resource-demanding process of having expert surgeons do the assessment. Computer-based automation and artificial intelligence (AI) are seen as promising alternatives to expert-based surgical assessment. However, no standard protocols or methods for preparing data and implementing AI are available for clinicians. This may be among the reasons for the impediment to the use of AI in the clinical setting.

METHOD

We tested our method on porcine models with both the da Vinci Si and the da Vinci Xi. We sought to capture raw video data from the surgical robots and 3D movement data from the surgeons and prepared the data for the use in AI by a structured guide to acquire and prepare video data using the following steps: 'Capturing image data from the surgical robot', 'Extracting event data', 'Capturing movement data of the surgeon', 'Annotation of image data'.

RESULTS

15 participant (11 novices and 4 experienced) performed 10 different intraabdominal RAS procedures. Using this method we captured 188 videos (94 from the surgical robot, and 94 corresponding movement videos of the surgeons' arms and hands). Event data, movement data, and labels were extracted from the raw material and prepared for use in AI.

CONCLUSION

With our described methods, we could collect, prepare, and annotate images, events, and motion data from surgical robotic systems in preparation for its use in AI.