Objective Accurate segmentation of surgical instruments in endoscopic images is essential for developing computer-assisted surgical systems, yet creating annotated training datasets remains labor-intensive. This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of point-based interactive segmentation using foundation models for surgical instrument annotation in spinal endoscopy.
Methods We conducted a retrospective study comparing point-based segmentation performance between Segment Anything Model (SAM) 2.0, SAM 2.1, and domain-adapted MedSAM 2.1 for surgical instrument segmentation in spinal endoscopy. A test set of 308 images from 10 patients undergoing full-endoscopic lumbar decompression/discectomy or biportal endoscopic decompression/discectomy was evaluated. Models were assessed using standardized point prompts placed at the ground truth mask centroid. Primary outcomes included Dice similarity coefficient at single-click and success rate (Dice≥0.85). Secondary analysis evaluated click-to-quality metrics across iterative refinement up to 10 clicks.
Results At single-click, MedSAM 2.1 achieved significantly higher Dice scores than SAM 2.1 (0.937±0.074 vs. 0.844±0.222, p<0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI] for difference, 0.070–0.116) and SAM 2.0 (0.937±0.074 vs. 0.824±0.236, p<0.001; 95% CI for difference, 0.088–0.138), with a 3-fold reduction in variability (standard deviation: 0.074 vs. 0.222). External validation on the publicly available Spine Endoscopic Atlas dataset (202 images from 10 patients) confirmed generalizability, with MedSAM 2.1 achieving Dice 0.918±0.083, compared to 0.724±0.281 for SAM 2.1 and 0.708±0.290 for SAM 2.0 (both p<0.001). Interrater agreement between 2 independent annotators demonstrated excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.991; 95% CI, 0.986–0.994; mean pairwise Dice, 0.953±0.051). The MedSAM 2.1-assisted workflow reduced annotation time by 75.8% compared to manual polygon annotation (7.7±13.3 seconds vs. 31.8±18.2 seconds per image; p<0.001; 4.1-fold speedup). SAM 2.1 improved progressively with additional clicks (Dice 0.844 to 0.943 at 10 clicks), while MedSAM 2.1 showed nonmonotonic progression (0.937 to 0.947), indicating near-optimal first-click predictions.
Conclusion Domain-adapted MedSAM 2.1 improved single-click annotation accuracy and efficiency for surgical instruments in spinal endoscopy, suggesting that low-resource domain adaptation may facilitate institutional dataset construction for surgical artificial intelligence research.
Sang-Min Park, Kwang-Sup Song, Dae-Woong Ham, Ho-Joong Kim, Min-Seok Kang, Ki-Han You, Choon Keun Park, Dong-Keun Lee, Jin-Sung Kim, Hong-Jae Lee, Hyun-Jin Park
Neurospine 2024;21(4):1190-1198. Published online December 31, 2024
Objective To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events.
Methods We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period.
Results The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%).
Conclusion BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Editorial: Beyond the Portal Wars—Forging a New Consensus in Endoscopic Spine Surgery Jin-Sung Kim, Piya Chavalparit Global Spine Journal.2026; 16(1): 9. CrossRef
Comparison of paraspinal muscle changes after biportal endoscopic and microscopic lumbar discectomy or decompression Ki-Han You, Sang-Min Park, Daniel Park, Min-Seok Kang, Seung-Yeon Jeong, Sun-Ho Cha, Samuel Cho, Hyun-Jin Park European Spine Journal.2026; 35(10): 6071. CrossRef
Improvement in low back pain following endoscopic decompression for spinal stenosis Maria Auron, Yihyun Roh, Maria C. Pedraza Ciro, Win Boonsirikamchai, Yi-Hao Liang, Jung Hoon Kim, Jin-Sung Kim Brain and Spine.2026; 6: 105995. CrossRef
A Systematic Review of Complication Management During Uniportal and Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Dural Tear and Bleeding Siravich Suvithayasiri, Ju Eun Kim, Facundo Van Isseldyk, Marcus Serra, Christopher Martin, Viswanadha Arunkumar, Sotirios Veranis, Prashanth Rao, Enrico Giordan, Piya Chavalparit, Nelson Astur, Samuel Cho, Jin Sung Kim Global Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Complications in Minimally Invasive Cervical Spine Surgery–Tubular, Uniportal, and Biportal Endoscopic Surgery (2013–2024) Noah Willett, Chibuikem A. Ikwuegbuenyi, Sean Inzerillo, Eesha Gurav, Mousa Hamad, Ibrahim Hussain, Alan Hernández-Hernández, Galal Elsayed, Osama Kashlan, Roger Härtl Spine.2026; 51(7): E175. CrossRef
Asymptomatic multisegmental epidural hematoma following unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression: a case report Chun-li Zeng, Jian-cai Zhang, Jin-song Yu, Meng-jun Liu Journal of Medical Case Reports.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
O‐Arm Navigation Enhances Facet Preservation Without Compromising Clinical Outcomes in UBE Decompression for Radiographically Stable Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Single‐Center Comparative Study Yi Liu, Yiwei Xie, Zhibao Chen, Ruijun Xu, Haojie Chen, Xiaojian Ye, Jiangming Yu Orthopaedic Surgery.2026; 18(6): 1203. CrossRef
Comparison of outcomes after unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies Abdullah Afridi, Ayesha Zulfiqar, Muhammad Waqar Shahid, Fatima Sajjad, Hamnah Sohail, Fazia Khattak, Sabir Khan, Ayesha Naseem, Alina Batool, Muhammad Muneeb, Savira Khattak, Izhar Ul Haq, Ayesha Shahid, Ayesha Nauman, Marium Nisar, Tanveer Hussain, Ahsa Egyptian Journal of Neurosurgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Functional Outcome of Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery Versus Destandau Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Structured Narrative Review Paresh C Dey, Saurav N Nanda, Saswat Samant, Ashok K Gachhayat, Abhay Tyagi, Sayashi S, Sumit Kaushik Cureus.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical efficacy, safety, and technical feasibility of the Destandau Endospine system in the management of lumbar degenerative pathologies in resource-constrained settings Sagar Gawali, Aditya Patil, Vishal Kale, Piyush Wani Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery.2026; 45: 102324. CrossRef
Direct endoscopic visualization improves endplate preparation in lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative study of biportal endoscopic and conventional techniques Hyun-Jin Park, Samuel K. Cho, Sang-Min Park, Min-Seok Kang, Ho-Joong Kim, Jin S. Yeom European Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Comment on: “Comparison of outcomes after unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies” Aman Advani, Parkash Lohana, Anmol Mandhan Egyptian Journal of Neurosurgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Cost-effectiveness of biportal endoscopic spine surgery compared with microscopic surgery for lumbar degenerative diseases: a pooled analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials Sang-Min Park, Kwang-Sup Song, Ho-Joong Kim, Min-Seok Kang, Ki-Han You, Jin-Sung Kim, Hyun-Jin Park The Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Cost-effectiveness analysis of the early transition from microscopic to biportal endoscopic unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression Sung-Eun Kwon, Hangeul Park, Noah Hong, Woojin Kim, Jungbo Sim, Ho Sung Myeong, Seunghoon Lee, Jun-Hoe Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Fon-Yih Tsuang, Chi Heon Kim Medicine.2026; 105(34): e50400. CrossRef
Reconstructed Three-Dimensional vs. Two-Dimensional Visualization in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Feasibility Study Felix Corr, Silvio A. Heinig, Simon Behringer, Felix C. Stengel, Lorenzo Bertulli, Nader Hejrati, Oliver Bozinov, Martin N. Stienen, Stefan Motov NeuroSci.2026; 7(5): 97. CrossRef
Impact of Concomitant Grade I Degenerative Spondylolisthesis on Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes Following Biportal Endoscopic versus Microscopic Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial Hyun-Jin Park, Min-Seok Kang, Kwang-Sup Song, Dae-Woong Ham, Ho-Joong Kim, Ki-Han You, Seung-Yeon Jeong, Jin-Sung Kim, Sang-Min Park Global Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Safety and Utility of Bilateral-contralateral Decompression for Adjacent Segment Stenosis After Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Dong Hyun Lee, Choon Keun Park, Jae-Won Jang, Dong-Geun Lee Clinical Spine Surgery.2025; 38(10): E488. CrossRef
Far-Lateral Transforaminal Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Upper Lumbar Disc Herniations Jin Seop Hwang, Sang Hyub Lee, Dain Jeong, Jae-Won Jang, Yong Eun Cho, Dong-Geun Lee, Choon Keun Park, Chung Kee Chough Neurospine.2025; 22(1): 14. CrossRef
O-arm navigation-based transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation: an innovative preliminary study Dong Hyun Lee, Choon Keun Park, Jin-Sung Kim, Jin Sub Hwang, Jin Young Lee, Dong-Geun Lee, Jae-Won Jang, Jun Yong Kim, Yong-Eun Cho, Dong Chan Lee Asian Spine Journal.2025; 19(2): 194. CrossRef
Analgesic-soaked acellular dermal matrix for postoperative pain control after endoscopic spine surgery: a retrospective chart review Doohun Hyun, Woo Min Park, Jung Hoon Park, Chai Min Yoo, Woo Joo Lee, Shih Min Lee, Cheol Wung Park Journal of Korean Society of Geriatric Neurosurgery.2025; 21(2): 68. CrossRef
Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Biportal Endoscopic Revision Extraforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Following Previous Central Decompression: A Case Series Seung-Yeon Jeong, Hyun-Jin Park, Jin-Ho Park, Gab-Lae Kim Journal of Advanced Spine Surgery.2025; 15(2): 84. CrossRef
Luca Ambrosio, Gianluca Vadalà, Javad Tavakoli, Laura Scaramuzzo, Giovanni Barbanti Brodano, Stephen J. Lewis, So Kato, Samuel K. Cho, S. Tim Yoon, Ho-Joong Kim, Matthew F. Gary, Vincenzo Denaro, AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative
Neurospine 2024;21(1):204-211. Published online March 31, 2024
Objective To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions.
Methods A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed.
Results Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001).
Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Duration of Wound Coverage for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections After Surgery: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence With Meta‐Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Moira D. Cruickshank, Kirsty Loudon, Paul D. Manson, George Ramsay, Miriam G. Brazzelli International Wound Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
The AO Spine Knowledge Forums: A Decade of Impactful Spine Research Klaus John Schnake, Michael G. Fehlings, Niccole Germscheid, Shekar Kurpad, Ilya Laufer, Stephen J. Lewis, Gregory D. Schroeder, S. Tim Yoon, Charles G. Fisher Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(7): 3039. CrossRef
Two-week post-operative dressing: balancing cost and surgical site infection risk in orthopaedic procedures Musa Muhammad, Aliyu M. Maigoro, Lamidi Jimoh, Rabiu A. Rufai, Oni N. Salawu, Shamsuddeen Muhammad, Sani A. Giade, Kabir B. Jatto, Shem B. Yilleng International Journal of Research in Orthopaedics.2025; 12(1): 30. CrossRef
First
Prev
