Back

Real-time Computer Vision Assisted Navigation for Endoscopic Pituitary Surgery: Iterative Development and Comparative Preclinical Evaluation

Khan, D. Z.; Mao, Z.; Hudson, G.; Wijekoon, A.; Chen, J.-e.; Borg, A.; Dorward, N.; Blandford, A.; Clarkson, M.; McCulloch, P.; Bano, S.; Stoyanov, D.; Marcus, H.

2026-06-04 surgery
10.64898/2026.06.02.26354760 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Endoscopic pituitary surgery involves navigating high-stakes anatomy where complications, such as carotid artery injury, cause devastating morbidity. While computer vision AI offers potential for real-time anatomical recognition to mitigate these risks, successful translation requires rigorous human-factors and performance evaluation. We present the iterative development and preclinical evaluation of a surgeon-controlled, real-time AI-assisted navigation system. Methods Guided by IDEAL Stage 0 and DECIDE-AI frameworks, the study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 was an exploratory study where surgeons used the system during high-fidelity simulated surgery and provided feedback via "Think Aloud" protocols and surveys. Following prototype iteration, a Phase 2 randomized crossover comparative trial was conducted with 19 neurosurgeons (15 trainees, 4 experts) performing high-fidelity simulated tumour resections with and without AI assistance, separated by a minimum 2-week washout. The primary outcome was surgical technical performance (OSATS). Workload, educational value, usability, trust, and implementation outcomes were also assessed. Results Phase 1 informed hardware, model, and interface refinements, including optimized pedal-controlled overlays and prediction confidence metrics. In the comparative trial, AI assistance significantly improved overall technical performance (OSATS 19.79+/-4.06 vs. 17.32+/-4.11; p=0.027). This gain was experience-dependent; AI significantly augmented trainee performance (19.20+/-3.76 vs. 16.60+/-3.78), narrowing the proficiency gap, while expert performance remained high and stable. 100% of participants identified the system as a useful training tool. However, subjective workload was significantly higher in the AI arm (SURG-TLX 26.42+/-9.56 vs. 22.26+/-7.81; p=0.014). Despite this, usability (SUS 75.13+/-14.31) and implementation feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness scores were consistently high (means >4.4/5). Conclusions This study provides a stepwise process for real-time AI development using pituitary surgery as a high-stakes exemplar. The refined surgeon-centric AI system improves training and technical performance, particularly for trainees. Next steps involve first-in-human studies and further exploration of longer-term human factors such as over-reliance, cognitive overload mitigation and trust calibration.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
13.3%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
13.0%
3
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.8%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 11%
7.5%
5
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
6
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.2%
8
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
9
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.2%
10
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.2%
11
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.2%
12
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
13
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.0%
14
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
15
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
16
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
17
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
18
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
19
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.3%
20
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
21
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
22
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
24
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
25
Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
26
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Physiology & Behavior
30 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
28
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
29
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%
30
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%