Paolo Palmisciano1, Aimun A B Jamjoom2, Daniel Taylor3, Danail Stoyanov3, Hani J Marcus4. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom; Department of Neurosurgery, Policlinico Gaspare Rodolico, Catania, Italy. Electronic address: paolo.palmisciano94@gmail.com. 2. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 3. Wellcome EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom; Wellcome EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) may favorably support surgeons but can result in concern among patients and their relatives. The aim of this study was to evaluate attitudes of patients and their relatives regarding use of AI in neurosurgery. METHODS: In a 2-stage cross-sectional survey, a qualitative survey was administered to a focus group of former patients to investigate their perception of AI and its role in neurosurgery. Five themes were identified and used to generate a case-based quantitative survey administered to inpatients and their relatives over a 2-week period. Presented AI platforms were rated appropriate and acceptable using 5-point Likert scales. Demographic data were collected. χ2 test was used to determine whether demographics influenced participants' attitudes. RESULTS: In the first stage, 20 participants responded. Five themes were identified: interpretation of imaging (4/20; 20%), operative planning (5/20; 25%), real-time alert of potential complications (10/20; 50%), partially autonomous surgery (6/20; 30%), and fully autonomous surgery (3/20; 15%). In the second stage, 107 participants responded. Most thought it appropriate and acceptable to use AI for imaging interpretation (76.7%; 66.3%), operative planning (76.7%; 75.8%), real-time alert of potential complications (82.2%; 72.9%), and partially autonomous surgery (58%; 47.7%). Conversely, most did not think that fully autonomous surgery was appropriate (27.1%) or acceptable (17.7%). Demographics did not have a significant influence on perception. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients and their relatives believed that AI has a role in neurosurgery and found it acceptable. Notable exceptions were fully autonomous systems, with most wanting the neurosurgeon ultimately to remain in control.
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) may favorably support surgeons but can result in concern among patients and their relatives. The aim of this study was to evaluate attitudes of patients and their relatives regarding use of AI in neurosurgery. METHODS: In a 2-stage cross-sectional survey, a qualitative survey was administered to a focus group of former patients to investigate their perception of AI and its role in neurosurgery. Five themes were identified and used to generate a case-based quantitative survey administered to inpatients and their relatives over a 2-week period. Presented AI platforms were rated appropriate and acceptable using 5-point Likert scales. Demographic data were collected. χ2 test was used to determine whether demographics influenced participants' attitudes. RESULTS: In the first stage, 20 participants responded. Five themes were identified: interpretation of imaging (4/20; 20%), operative planning (5/20; 25%), real-time alert of potential complications (10/20; 50%), partially autonomous surgery (6/20; 30%), and fully autonomous surgery (3/20; 15%). In the second stage, 107 participants responded. Most thought it appropriate and acceptable to use AI for imaging interpretation (76.7%; 66.3%), operative planning (76.7%; 75.8%), real-time alert of potential complications (82.2%; 72.9%), and partially autonomous surgery (58%; 47.7%). Conversely, most did not think that fully autonomous surgery was appropriate (27.1%) or acceptable (17.7%). Demographics did not have a significant influence on perception. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients and their relatives believed that AI has a role in neurosurgery and found it acceptable. Notable exceptions were fully autonomous systems, with most wanting the neurosurgeon ultimately to remain in control.
Authors: Sriram Ramgopal; L Nelson Sanchez-Pinto; Christopher M Horvat; Michael S Carroll; Yuan Luo; Todd A Florin Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 3.953
Authors: Faisal A Nawaz; Austin A Barr; Monali Y Desai; Christos Tsagkaris; Romil Singh; Elisabeth Klager; Fabian Eibensteiner; Emil D Parvanov; Mojca Hribersek; Maria Kletecka-Pulker; Harald Willschke; Atanas G Atanasov Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Simon Lennartz; Thomas Dratsch; David Zopfs; Thorsten Persigehl; David Maintz; Nils Große Hokamp; Daniel Pinto Dos Santos Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Simon Williams; Hugo Layard Horsfall; Jonathan P Funnell; John G Hanrahan; Danyal Z Khan; William Muirhead; Danail Stoyanov; Hani J Marcus Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Tolga Turan Dundar; Ismail Yurtsever; Meltem Kurt Pehlivanoglu; Ugur Yildiz; Aysegul Eker; Mehmet Ali Demir; Ahmet Serdar Mutluer; Recep Tektaş; Mevlude Sila Kazan; Serkan Kitis; Abdulkerim Gokoglu; Ihsan Dogan; Nevcihan Duru Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-04-29
Authors: Sebastian J Fritsch; Andrea Blankenheim; Alina Wahl; Petra Hetfeld; Oliver Maassen; Saskia Deffge; Julian Kunze; Rolf Rossaint; Morris Riedel; Gernot Marx; Johannes Bickenbach Journal: Digit Health Date: 2022-08-08
Authors: Sebastian Isbanner; Pauline O'Shaughnessy; David Steel; Scarlet Wilcock; Stacy Carter Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-08-22 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Hugo Layard Horsfall; Paolo Palmisciano; Danyal Z Khan; William Muirhead; Chan Hee Koh; Danail Stoyanov; Hani J Marcus Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 2.104