Surgical instrument segmentation (SIS) is fundamental for computer-assisted surgery, where reliable instrument masks enable precise scene understanding and clinical assistance. Recently, adapting foundation models like the Segment Anything Model (SAM) to the surgical domain via prompt-learning has shown encouraging results. However, the performance of these adapted models under challenging surgical conditions is constrained by suboptimal adaptation mechanisms. Specifically, optimizing prompts or prototypes purely via downstream segmentation loss tends to cause them to degenerate into task-specific parameters rather than serving as persistent, stable category memory, thereby degrading their robustness against complex intraoperative variations. Moreover, routing multi-scale visual cues through a single prompt pathway creates a bottleneck that hinders effective scale-matched coupling. To address these limitations, we propose HPMA, a Hierarchical Prototype-Memory Adaptation framework for SAM. Specifically, HPMA constructs a frozen, multi-scale visual prototype memory bank from annotated surgical scenes and integrates it into SAM's feature space using lightweight adapters to preserve stable category evidence. To maximize the utility of multi-scale cues, we introduce a scale-matched coupling mechanism where global prototypes calibrate class-level prompt features, structural prototypes guide decoder object queries, and local prototypes align high-resolution feature maps through a local alignment objective. Extensive experiments on the public EndoVis2017 and EndoVis2018 datasets demonstrate that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming existing foundation model adaptation methods.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: The conceptual comparison of (a) previous prompt-learning method and our (b) hierarchical prototype-memory adaptation method.
Fig. 2: Overview of the proposed HPMA framework. (a) The Multi-scale Prototype-Memory Construction extracts multi-scale FPN features from labeled surgical images using a frozen SAM3 image encoder and constructs global-, structural-, and local-level prototype banks. (b) The Hierarchical Representation Level-to-Module Coupling mechanism injects global prototypes into text features before multimodal fusion, uses structural prototypes to refine decoder object queries, and aligns high-resolution image features with local prototypes during training. (c) The Adaptation Detail of the modules at each level.
Method
Ref.
Challenge IoU
IoU
mc IoU
mDice
Instrument Categories
BF
PF
LND
VS
GR
MCS
UP
ISINet
MICCAI’ 20
55.62
52.20
28.96
52.00
38.70
38.50
50.09
27.43
2.01
28.72
12.56
MATIS Frame
ISBI’ 23
68.79
62.74
37.30
53.06
66.18
50.99
52.23
32.84
15.71
19.27
23.90
S3Net
WACV’ 23
72.54
71.99
46.55
66.44
75.08
54.32
61.84
35.50
27.47
43.23
28.38
SCI-Net
JBHI’ 26
72.26
69.08
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TrackAnything
-
67.41
64.50
62.97
-
55.42
44.46
62.43
67.03
65.17
83.68
62.59
TABLE I: Comparative Results on the EndoVis2017 Dataset. The best results are presented in bold.
Method
Ref.
Challenge IoU
IoU
mc IoU
mDice
Instrument Categories
BF
PF
LND
MCS
UP
SI
CA
ISINet
MICCAI’ 20
73.03
70.97
40.21
71.10
73.83
48.61
30.98
88.16
2.16
37.68
0.00
MATIS Frame
ISBI’ 23
82.37
77.01
48.65
63.66
83.35
38.82
40.19
93.18
16.17
64.49
4.32
S3Net
WACV’ 23
75.81
74.02
42.58
68.02
77.22
50.87
19.83
92.12
7.44
50.59
0.00
SCI-Net
JBHI’ 26
83.59
81.10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TrackAnything
-
65.72
60.88
38.60
-
72.90
31.07
64.73
61.05
17.93
10.24
12.28
TABLE II: Comparative Results on the EndoVis2018 Dataset. The best results are presented in bold.
Fig. 3: The visual results of the comparative experiments. The green boxes highlight the comparison details.
Fig. 4: The attention map visualization of SAM3 and our HPMA method.
No.
Global
Structural
Local
Challenge IoU
IoU
mc IoU
1
×
×
×
81.11
81.11
70.22
2
✓
×
×
81.90
81.90
75.38
3
×
✓
×
82.66
82.66
75.03
4
×
×
✓
83.16
83.16
74.05
5
✓
✓
×
83.44
83.44
76.89
6
✓
✓
✓
84.12
84.12
77.20
TABLE III: Ablation Study on the EndoVis2018 Dataset.
Injection Strategy
Challenge IoU
IoU
mc IoU
Multi-scale mean fusion
82.20
82.20
74.08
Multi-scale learned fusion
82.45
82.45
71.74
G-Text, S-Dec
83.44
83.44
76.89
G-Dec, S-Text
82.60
82.60
72.50
G-Text, L-SegHead
82.98
82.98
76.44
G-Text, S-Dec, L-SegHead
82.51
82.51
76.59
TABLE IV: Ablation Study on the Injection Strategies.
Vision foundation model adaptation tailors pretrained image and video models to new tasks and domains while balancing accuracy, efficiency, and generalization.
Center for Imaging Science, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA · Biomedical Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA