TEsoNet: knowledge transfer in surgical phase recognition from laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to the laparoscopic part of Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Surgical phase recognition using computer vision presents an essential requirement for artificial intelligence-assisted analysis of surgical workflow. Its performance is heavily dependent on large amounts of annotated video data, which remain a limited resource, especially concerning highly specialized procedures. Knowledge transfer from common to more complex procedures can promote data efficiency. Phase recognition models trained on large, readily available datasets may be extrapolated and transferred to smaller datasets of different procedures to improve generalizability. The conditions under which transfer learning is appropriate and feasible remain to be established. METHODS: We defined ten operative phases for the laparoscopic part of Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy through expert consensus. A dataset of 40 videos was annotated accordingly. The knowledge transfer capability of an established model architecture for phase recognition (CNN + LSTM) was adapted to generate a "Transferal Esophagectomy Network" (TEsoNet) for co-training and transfer learning from laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy to the laparoscopic part of Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy, exploring different training set compositions and training weights. RESULTS: The explored model architecture is capable of accurate phase detection in complex procedures, such as Esophagectomy, even with low quantities of training data. Knowledge transfer between two upper gastrointestinal procedures is feasible and achieves reasonable accuracy with respect to operative phases with high procedural overlap. CONCLUSION: Robust phase recognition models can achieve reasonable yet phase-specific accuracy through transfer learning and co-training between two related procedures, even when exposed to small amounts of training data of the target procedure. Further exploration is required to determine appropriate data amounts, key characteristics of the training procedure and temporal annotation methods required for successful transferal phase recognition. Transfer learning across different procedures addressing small datasets may increase data efficiency. Finally, to enable the surgical application of AI for intraoperative risk mitigation, coverage of rare, specialized procedures needs to be explored.

Reliable gastric closure after natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) using a novel automated flexible stapling device.

BACKGROUND: Reliable closure of the translumenal incision is one of the main challenges facing natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). This study aimed to evaluate the use of an automated flexible stapling device (SurgASSIST) for closure of the gastrotomy incision in a porcine model. METHODS: A double-channel gastroscope was advanced into the stomach. A gastric wall incision was made, and the endoscope was advanced into the peritoneal cavity. After peritoneoscopy, the endoscope was withdrawn into the stomach. The SurgASSIST stapler was advanced orally into the stomach. The gastrotomy edges were positioned between the opened stapler arms using two endoscopic grasping forceps. Stapler loads with and without a cutting blade were used for gastric closure. After firing of the stapler to close the gastric wall incision, x-ray with contrast was performed to assess for gastric leakage. At the end of the procedure, the animals were killed for a study of closure adequacy. RESULTS: Four acute animal experiments were performed. The delivery and positioning of the stapler were achieved, with technical difficulties mostly due to a short working length (60 cm) of the device. Firing of the staple delivered four rows of staples. Postmortem examination of pig 1 (when a cutting blade was used) demonstrated full-thickness closure of the gastric wall incision, but the cutting blade caused a transmural hole right at the end of the staple line. For this reason, we stopped using stapler loads with a cutting blade. In the three remaining animals (pigs 2-4), we were able to achieve a full-thickness closure of the gastric wall incision without any complications. CONCLUSIONS: The flexible stapling device may provide a simple and reliable technique for lumenal closure after NOTES procedures. Further survival studies are currently under way to evaluate the long-term efficacy of gastric closure with the stapler after intraperitoneal interventions.

Hybrid minimally invasive surgery--a bridge between laparoscopic and translumenal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The peroral transluminal approach to the peritoneal cavity appears safe, feasible, and may further reduce the invasiveness of surgery. However, flexible endoscopes have multiple limitations inside the peritoneal cavity, which can potentially be overcome by blending the use of both a laparoscope and a flexible upper endoscope--a hybrid approach. The goal of the present study was to evaluate a hybrid minimally invasive technique for cholecystectomy in a porcine model. METHODS: Hybrid cholecystectomies were performed in acute experiments on 50-kg pigs under general anesthesia. Pneumoperitoneum was created with a Veress needle, and a laparoscopic 10-mm port was inserted. Under laparoscopic observation, the gastric wall incision was done with an endoscopic needle-knife and sphincterotome, and the upper endoscope was advanced into the peritoneal cavity. A laparoscopic 10-mm port was inserted into the right upper quadrant of the abdomen for gallbladder traction to facilitate exposure of the cystic duct and artery. Via the biopsy channel of the flexible endoscope, and using a knife with an isolated tip, a needle knife, and clips, both the cystic duct and artery were identified, clipped, and transected. The gallbladder itself was then dissected and retracted through the mouth, and the gastric wall incision was closed with endoscopic clips. RESULTS: Five hybrid cholecystectomies were performed without complications. The laparoscopic port enabled a stable pneumoperitoneum, good traction and counter-traction, and improved spatial orientation and visualization. Necropsy did not reveal any intraperitoneal complications. CONCLUSIONS: The hybrid approach increases safety of initial gastric puncture and gastric wall incision, improves orientation and navigation of the flexible endoscope inside the peritoneal cavity, simplifies peroral transgastric cholecystectomy, and could be used to decrease invasiveness of laparoscopic surgery and to facilitate development and clinical introduction of transgastric endoscopic procedures. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-007-9329-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of intraabdominal pressures using the gastroscope and laparoscope for transgastric surgery.

BACKGROUND: The peroral transgastric endoscopic approach for intraabdominal procedures appears to be feasible, although multiple aspects of this approach remain unclear. This study aimed to measure intraperitoneal pressure in a porcine model during the peroral transgastric endoscopic approach, comparing an endoscopic on-demand insufflator/light source with a standard autoregulated laparoscopic insufflator. METHODS: All experiments were performed with 50-kg female pigs under general anesthesia. A standard upper endoscope was advanced perorally through a gastric wall incision into the peritoneal cavity. The peritoneal cavity was insufflated with operating room air from an endoscopic light source/insufflator. Intraperitoneal pressure was measured by three routes: (1) through the endoscope biopsy channel, (2) through a 5-mm transabdominal laparoscopic port, and (3) through a 16-gauge Veress needle inserted into the peritoneal cavity through the anterior abdominal wall. The source of insufflation alternated between on-demand manual insufflation through the endoscopic light source/insufflator using room air and a standard autoregulated laparoscopic insufflator using carbon dioxide (CO(2)). RESULTS: Six acute experiments were performed. Intraperitoneal pressure measurements showed good correlation regardless of measurement route and were independent of the type of insufflation gas, whether room air or CO(2). On-demand insufflation with the endoscopic light source/insufflator resulted in a wide variation in pressures (range, 4-32 mmHg; mean, 16.0 +/- 11.7). Intraabdominal pressures using a standard autoregulated laparoscopic insufflator demonstrated minimal fluctuation (range, 8-15 mmHg; mean, 11.0 +/- 2.2 mmHg) around a predetermined value. CONCLUSION: Use of an on-demand unregulated endoscopic light source/insufflator for translumenal surgery can cause large variation in intraperitoneal pressures and intraabdominal hypertension, leading to the risk of hemodynamic and respiratory compromise. Safety may favor well-controlled intraabdominal pressures achieved with a standard autoregulated laparoscopic insufflator.