UniSurgSAM: A Unified Promptable Model for Reliable Surgical Video Segmentation
Authors: Haofeng Liu, Ziyue Wang, Alex Y. W. Kong, Guanyi Qin, Yunqiu Xu, Chang Han Low, Mingqi Gao, Lap Yan Lennon Chan, +1 more
Organizations: Department of Biomedical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore · School of Computer Science, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Surgical video segmentation is fundamental to computer-assisted surgery. In practice, surgeons need to dynamically specify targets throughout extended procedures, using heterogeneous cues such as visual selections, textual expressions, or audio instructions. However, existing Promptable Video Object Segmentation (PVOS) methods are typically restricted to a single prompt modality and rely on coupled frameworks that cause optimization interference between target initialization and tracking. Moreover, these methods produce hallucinated predictions when the target is absent and suffer from accumulated mask drift without failure recovery. To address these challenges, we present UniSurgSAM, a unified PVOS model enabling reliable surgical video segmentation through visual, textual, or audio prompts. Specifically, UniSurgSAM employs a decoupled two-stage framework that independently optimizes initialization and tracking to resolve the optimization interference. Within this framework, we introduce three key designs for reliability: presence-aware decoding that models target absence to suppress hallucinations; boundary-aware long-term tracking that prevents mask drift over extended sequences; and adaptive state transition that closes the loop between stages for failure recovery. Furthermore, we establish a multi-modal and multi-granular benchmark from four public surgical datasets with precise instance-level masklets. Extensive experiments demonstrate that UniSurgSAM achieves state-of-the-art performance in real time across all prompt modalities and granularities, providing a practical foundation for computer-assisted surgery. Code and datasets will be available at https://jinlab-imvr.github.io/UniSurgSAM.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation. (A) Existing single-modal PVOS methods rely on a coupled decoder that causes optimization interference, with fragile open-loop pipelines prone to hallucinations and mask drift. (B) UniSurgSAM achieves unified PVOS through the decoupled two-stage framework for stable optimization, presence-aware decoding to suppress hallucinations, boundary-aware tracking to prevent mask drift, and adaptive state transition for closed-loop failure recovery. Textual prompt for the example: “large needle driver is manipulating tool on the right.” In (A) at time t , the model hallucinates a mask on the wrong object when the target is absent.
Figure 2: Overview of UniSurgSAM. The model adopts a decoupled two-stage framework that independently supports visual, textual, or audio prompts: Stage I performs promptable initialization from the given prompt, while Stage II conducts boundary-aware long-term tracking. For linguistic prompts, AST acts as a central controller that routes data to the detector or tracker via a selector, coordinating bidirectional switching through credible activation (Entry) and consensus-based fallback (Exit).
Figure 3: Illustration of Diversity-Driven Long-Term Memory.
Dataset
Video
Frame
Masklet (whole)
Mask (whole)
Masklet (part)
Mask (part)
Avg. Dur. (s)
Training Set
Uni-EndoVis17
7
2100
20
4873
55
11696
300
Uni-EndoVis18-I
11
1639
34
3787
78
7086
149
Uni-EndoVis18-T
11
1639
25
2995
-
-
149
Uni-RARP50
44
13043
367
42554
482
63749
296
Uni-SurgAI3.8K
36
2033
36
2033
-
-
56
Table 1: Dataset Statistics. Avg. Dur. denotes average duration
Method
Uni-EndoVis17
Uni-EndoVis18-I
Uni-RARP50
Uni-EndoVis18-T
Uni-SurgAI3.8K
FPS
J & F
J
F
J & F
J
F
J & F
J
F
J & F
J
F
J & F
J
F
SAM2 ( 2025 )
75.9
76.0
75.8
76.7
76.5
76.9
80.2
79.0
81.3
74.4
79.3
69.5
86.9
92.5
81.2
69
SAM2Long ( 2025 )
72.1
72.1
72.1
75.4
75.2
75.6
79.7
78.5
80.9
74.5
79.3
69.6
86.8
92.5
81.0
22
DAM4SAM ( 2025 )
76.2
76.1
76.2
73.1
72.8
73.3
77.5
76.3
78.6
74.5
79.4
69.5
86.8
92.5
81.1
63
SAMURAI ( 2024 )
75.3
75.3
75.3
74.5
74.2
74.8
77.9
77.9
77.8
72.9
77.5
68.3
86.6
92.4
80.7
22
MA-SAM2 ( 2025 )
75.5
75.5
75.4
78.6
78.3
78.9
82.5
81.3
83.7
74.7
79.6
69.8
86.7
92.4
81.0
65
Table 2: Quantitative comparison with Visual PVOS methods using 3-point prompts. Bold and underline denote best and second best.
Method
Setting
Uni-EndoVis17
Uni-EndoVis18-I
Uni-RARP50
Uni-EndoVis18-T
Uni-SurgAI3.8K
FPS
J & F
J
F
J & F
J
F
J & F
J
F
J & F
J
F
J & F
J
F
ReferFormer ( 2022 )
Offline
62.5
62.3
62.6
71.1
71.0
71.2
81.7
80.6
82.8
61.9
69.9
53.8
82.5
90.1
74.8
42
MUTR ( 2024 )
Offline
61.0
60.8
61.2
67.6
67.8
67.3
74.5
73.3
75.6
63.6
71.5
55.6
81.4
89.5
73.2
32
SurgRef ( 2026 )
Offline
62.3
62.0
62.5
70.3
70.4
70.2
76.2
75.3
77.1
65.3
71.5
59.1
81.6
89.3
73.9
40
RSVIS ( 2024 )
Semi-online
61.3
61.4
61.1
68.4
68.6
68.2
72.4
71.7
73.0
65.7
72.9
58.5
75.7
83.2
68.2
28
SAMWISE ( 2025 )
Semi-online
60.1
59.5
60.6
70.6
69.8
71.4
82.5
81.7
83.2
64.5
71.9
57.0
79.3
88.0
70.6
12
Table 3: Quantitative analysis of Linguistic PVOS (Textual and Audio). Bold and underline denote best and second best in Textual PVOS.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison in Uni-EndoVis18 (left) and Uni-RARP50 (right) for Textual PVOS. FP and FN denote false positive and false negative predictions, respectively. Numbers in images denote time in seconds.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison in Uni-EndoVis17 for Visual PVOS under three-point initialization.
Method
Uni-EndoVis17
Uni-EndoVis18-I
Uni-RARP50
J & F
J
F
J & F
J
F
J & F
J
F
ReferFormer
60.2
57.5
62.8
64.3
63.0
65.6
72.7
72.0
73.3
SAMWISE
63.7
60.1
67.2
67.6
65.4
63.2
77.9
77.5
78.3
RefSAM
66.0
64.6
67.4
69.3
67.8
66.2
74.7
74.2
75.1
ReSurgSAM2
69.1
67.1
71.0
71.7
69.5
73.8
78.7
77.4
79.9
UniSurgSAM
77.7
75.1
80.3
77.3
75.3
79.3
88.4
87.6
89.1
Table 4: Instrument part segmentation under Textual PVOS.
Decoupled Decoders
RPAD
BLT
AST
Uni- EndoVis17
Uni- EndoVis18-I
Uni- EndoVis18-T
68.8
74.5
72.2
√
71.3
76.8
73.5
√
√
74.5
78.7
74.6
√
√
√
77.4
81.5
76.7
√
√
√
78.5
82.1
75.5
√
√
√
√
82.4
85.1
79.8
Table 5: Ablation study of the main components ( J & F ).
Model Configuration
Uni- EndoVis17
Uni- EndoVis18-I
Uni- EndoVis18-T
Baseline
78.5
82.1
75.5
+ Boundary Decoding
79.7
83.5
78.2
+ Memory Integration
80.9
84.0
79.2
+ DLM (FIFO eviction)
81.6
84.5
79.4
+ DLM (full)
82.4
85.1
79.8
Table 6: Ablation on boundary-aware tracking components ( J & F ). Baseline: decoupled decoders + RPAD + AST.
Model Configuration
Uni- EndoVis17
Uni- EndoVis18-I
Uni- EndoVis18-T
Baseline
77.4
81.5
76.7
+ Credible Activation
79.8
83.2
78.1
+ Consensus Fallback
82.4
85.1
79.8
Table 7: Ablation on AST components under Textual PVOS ( J & F ).
Figure 6: Qualitative analysis of consensus-based fallback in AST. The system successfully detects tracking drift and triggers re-initialization.
Backbone
Uni-EndoVis17
Uni-EndoVis18-I
Uni-EndoVis18-T
FPS
J & F
J
F
J & F
J
F
J & F
J
F
Small
80.6
80.6
80.5
82.5
82.8
82.1
77.6
82.9
72.3
58
Base+
82.4
82.3
82.4
85.1
85.3
84.9
79.8
86.2
73.4
55
Table 8: Comparison across backbone scales under Textual PVOS.
Figure 7: Analysis of optimization interference.
Figure 8: Analysis of presence-aware decoding with negative sampling.
Center for Imaging Science, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA · Biomedical Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA