SurgTAP-3D Read paper
SURGICAL TRACKING ANY POINT IN 3D

SurgTAP-3D

A Large-Scale Cross-Surgery Video Dataset
with Contact-Aware 3D Motion Tracking

Accepted to IEEE Transactions on Robotics (T-RO)

Jiaxin Guo1 · Wenzhen Dong1 · Taoyu Wu2 · Haomin Kuang3 · Mengya Xu1 · Kejian Shi1 · Ziyi Wang1 · Tongfan Guan1 · Mingkai Jia4 · Yue Wang5 · Qi Dou1 · Yun-Hui Liu1,†

1 The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China 2 University of Liverpool, Liverpool, U.K. 3 School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China 4 Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China 5 College of Control Science and Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China † Corresponding author

01 Curate surgical clipsRobotic & manual · Five actions
02 Prompt the interactionActive tool & contact region
03 Refine geometry & motionDynamic BA & global 4D refinement
04 Export synchronized labelsTracks · Depth · Poses · Masks
520K video frames 519,642 annotated frames
4,549 action clips Robotic & manual surgery
1.4M point trajectories 1,376,987 synchronized tracks
5 unified action classes Across diverse procedures
THE PAPER

Abstract

01 / DATASET

A large-scale surgical dataset

4,549 action clips, 519,642 frames, and 1.4M contact-aware 2D/3D point trajectories across robotic and manual surgery.

02 / PIPELINE

A unified annotation pipeline

Contact prompting, active-tool segmentation, dynamic bundle adjustment, and global 4D refinement for uncalibrated monocular video.

03 / BENCHMARK

A comprehensive benchmark

2D and 3D point-tracking evaluation for both instrument and tissue motion across SurgT, SurgPose, and STIR.

Understanding 3D scene dynamics in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a fundamental step toward enabling physically intelligent and autonomous surgical systems. However, existing public datasets are largely confined to ex-vivo or simulated environments, offering limited scalability and diversity in real-world clinical scenarios. Moreover, current annotations typically focus on either tissue or instruments alone, overlooking the critical contact dynamics that govern tool–tissue interactions. This gap restricts the development of downstream applications such as augmented reality guidance and autonomous surgery driven by vision-language-action (VLA) models or world models, which demand large-scale, high-quality 3D supervision.

In this work, we construct SurgTAP-3D, a large-scale in-vivo pseudo-3D surgical motion tracking dataset and benchmark, comprising 520K frames, 4,549 action clips, and 1.4M 2D/3D point trajectories from diverse robotic and manual procedures under unified action categories. To make such annotation scalable, we design the first unified framework for Surgical 3D Point Tracking that converts uncalibrated monocular surgical videos into structured 4D annotations through contact-region prompting, active-tool segmentation, dynamic bundle adjustment, and global 4D refinement. This pipeline adapts foundation priors to surgical videos and produces temporally consistent trajectories, pseudo-scale geometry, camera poses, and instrument masks. The dataset captures realistic challenges inherent to surgical environments, including occlusions, smoke, bleeding, and rapid instrument motion.

Furthermore, we establish a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate 3D point tracking performance across the SurgPose, SurgT, and STIR datasets, covering both instrument and tissue tracking scenarios. We also demonstrate downstream applications such as instrument displacement estimation, deformable surface reconstruction, and fine-tuning foundation models, highlighting the practical utility of our dataset and framework. Extensive experiments and analysis show the strong robustness and effectiveness of our dataset and annotation framework, for 3D surgical point tracking, reconstruction applications, and surgical action understanding, addressing an important limitation in real-world 3D surgical motion data.

DATASET

Dataset

In-vivo surgical video across robotic and manual procedures, organized into five action classes.

20–300 frames per retained clip
5–30 s action-centered sequences

Inside each clip

01

2D & 3D point trajectoriesSynchronized instrument and tissue motion

02

Depth & scene geometryTemporally consistent, pseudo-scale reconstruction

03

Camera intrinsics & posesGeometry in camera and global coordinates

04

Active-tool segmentationInstrument masks and contact-region prompts

05

Confidence & visibilityIndicators for filtering trajectories downstream

Dataset distribution

Table II. Description of SurgTAP-3D: video datasets from robotic and manual surgery. Average frames are reported per clip.
Type Dataset Surgery Clips Frames Avg. frames
Total 4,549 519,642 —
DIVERSITY & COVERAGE

Dataset distributions

Action classes, instruments, procedures, and trajectory statistics.

MOTION & INSTRUMENT ANALYSIS

Motion patterns & instrument–action relationships

Aligned 3D trajectories, PCA, and instrument distributions.
under the unified five-action taxonomy.

Action-conditioned 3D motion. Aligned trajectories and PCA visualize the motion patterns of the five surgical actions.
Instrument–action relationships. Tool distributions provide complementary context for understanding surgical actions.
TRACKING DEMOS

Five actions in 2D and 3D

Switch between surgical actions and view their synchronized trajectories.
Each view follows the same surgical interaction.

Vessel clipping / Synchronized tracking
01 2D tracking 02 3D · Camera view 03 3D · Global view

Track the tool–tissue interaction during vessel clipping in image, camera, and world coordinates.

Qualitative results across action classes
METHOD

Annotation pipeline

Contact prompts and foundation priors, followed by geometric and temporal refinement.
Geometric refinement provides consistency.

GLOBAL 4D REFINEMENT

Global 4D refinement

SURFACE CONSTRAINT

Stay on the instrument

Keep tracked points on the segmented instrument surface.

ARTICULATION-AWARE ARAP

Respect local rigidity

Preserve rigid shaft motion while allowing articulated joints to move.

FLOW CONSISTENCY

Agree across observations

Refine depth and 2D trajectories through flow consistency.

TEMPORAL SMOOTHNESS

Reduce unstable motion

Regularize temporal acceleration to reduce unstable motion.

COMPARISONS

Tracker comparisons

Tissue and instrument tracking comparisons.
RESULTS

Tracking benchmark

Tissue and instrument tracking on SurgT, SurgPose, and STIR.

3D tracking · Average across SurgT, SurgPose, and STIR
Method AJ 3D ↑ APD 3D ↑ OA ↑

AJ Average Jaccard
Tracking accuracy with visibility

APD Average Points within Distance
Point localization accuracy

OA Occlusion Accuracy
Visibility prediction accuracy

Selected results from Table IV, in %. 3D evaluation uses stereo-derived reference trajectories; protocols and full comparisons are in the paper.

ANNOTATION QUALITY

Annotation quality

Mean consistency indicators across the five action classes.

These indicators assess pseudo-annotation consistency, rather than absolute 3D accuracy.

88.41% Track survival · SR
95.98% Mask consistency · IMC
98.33% Tracking confidence · TCR
94.08% Temporal smoothness · TSR
APPLICATIONS

Applications

Reconstruction, instrument displacement, and tracker fine-tuning.
useful signals for downstream tasks.

Instrument displacement estimation
Deformable reconstruction and rendering
MODEL FINE-TUNING

Tracker fine-tuning

Training on SurgTAP-3D improves 2D tracking on SurgT and SurgPose.

Fine-tuning results · Table XI of the manuscript
Model / setting SurgT SurgPose
AJ 2D ↑ APD 2D ↑ AJ 2D ↑ APD 2D ↑
CoTrackerv3 73.32 79.02 49.40 61.84
CoTrackerv3 + fine-tuning 74.14 80.25 50.99 62.53
DELTAv2 73.75 79.21 51.20 61.97
DELTAv2 + fine-tuning 74.57 80.11 52.75 62.86
RESOURCES

Paper & resources

Dataset curation, annotation methods, and evaluation protocols are detailed in the paper.

Read the manuscript ↗

Dataset & code
Release links will be added when available.

What does “contact-aware” mean?

Visible tool–tissue interaction regions are marked and used to initialize trajectories. This refers to visual interaction annotations; it does not imply force sensing or a contact-physics model.

Are the 3D annotations ground truth?

The dataset provides reconstructed pseudo-3D trajectories and pseudo-scale geometry from monocular videos. Confidence and visibility indicators help identify trajectories suitable for downstream use.

Which visual conditions remain challenging?

Long instrument disappearance, large occlusion, and fast tool motion can produce drift or unstable tracks. The paper includes analysis of challenging cases, including smoke and bleeding.

Expanded research figure