Artificial intelligence for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia: a scoping review of the evidence from multiple disciplines

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia is a rapidly developing interdisciplinary field. There is a risk that work could be undertaken in parallel by different elements of the community but with a lack of knowledge transfer between disciplines, leading to repetition and diverging methodologies. This scoping review aimed to identify and map the available literature on the accuracy and utility of AI systems for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library. Clinical trial registries, a registry of doctoral theses, regulatory authority databases, and websites of learned societies in the field were searched. Online commercial sources were also reviewed.

RESULTS

In total, 13,014 sources were identified; 116 were included for full-text review. A marked change in AI techniques was noted in 2016-17, from which point on the predominant technique used was deep learning. Methods of evaluating accuracy are variable, meaning it is impossible to compare the performance of one model with another. Evaluations of utility are more comparable, but predominantly gained from the simulation setting with limited clinical data on efficacy or safety. Study methodology and reporting lack standardisation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of structure to the evaluation of accuracy and utility of AI for ultrasound scanning in regional anaesthesia, which hinders rigorous appraisal and clinical uptake. A framework for consistent evaluation is needed to inform model evaluation, allow comparison between approaches/models, and facilitate appropriate clinical adoption.

Evaluation of the impact of assistive artificial intelligence on ultrasound scanning for regional anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia relies on the visualisation of key landmark, target, and safety structures on ultrasound. However, this can be challenging, particularly for inexperienced practitioners. Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being applied to medical image interpretation, including ultrasound. In this exploratory study, we evaluated ultrasound scanning performance by non-experts in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia, with and without the use of an assistive AI device.

METHODS

Twenty-one anaesthetists, all non-experts in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia, underwent a standardised teaching session in ultrasound scanning for six peripheral nerve blocks. All then performed a scan for each block; half of the scans were performed with AI assistance and half without. Experts assessed acquisition of the correct block view and correct identification of sono-anatomical structures on each view. Participants reported scan confidence, experts provided a global rating score of scan performance, and scans were timed.

RESULTS

Experts assessed 126 ultrasound scans. Participants acquired the correct block view in 56/62 (90.3%) scans with the device compared with 47/62 (75.1%) without (P=0.031, two data points lost). Correct identification of sono-anatomical structures on the view was 188/212 (88.8%) with the device compared with 161/208 (77.4%) without (P=0.002). There was no significant overall difference in participant confidence, expert global performance score, or scan time.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of an assistive AI device was associated with improved ultrasound image acquisition and interpretation. Such technology holds potential to augment performance of ultrasound scanning for regional anaesthesia by non-experts, potentially expanding patient access to these techniques.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05156099.