Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Dec;37(12):9453-9460.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10377-3. Epub 2023 Sep 11.

What is the educational value and clinical utility of artificial intelligence for intraoperative and postoperative video analysis? A survey of surgeons and trainees

M Saif Hameed  1 , Simon Laplante  2   3 , Caterina Masino  2 , Muhammad Uzair Khalid  2   4 , Haochi Zhang  5 , Sergey Protserov  5 , Jaryd Hunter  5 , Pouria Mashouri  5 , Andras B Fecso  2 , Michael Brudno  5 , Amin Madani  2   3
Affiliations

What is the educational value and clinical utility of artificial intelligence for intraoperative and postoperative video analysis? A survey of surgeons and trainees

M Saif Hameed et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Dec.

Abstract

Introduction: Surgical complications often occur due to lapses in judgment and decision-making. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have made it possible to train algorithms that identify anatomy and interpret the surgical field. These algorithms can potentially be used for intraoperative decision-support and postoperative video analysis and feedback. Despite the very early success of proof-of-concept algorithms, it remains unknown whether this innovation meets the needs of end-users or how best to deploy it. This study explores users' opinion on the value, usability and design for adapting AI in operating rooms.

Methods: A device-agnostic web-accessible software was developed to provide AI inference either (1) intraoperatively on a live video stream (synchronous mode), or (2) on an uploaded video or image file (asynchronous mode) postoperatively for feedback. A validated AI model (GoNoGoNet), which identifies safe and dangerous zones of dissection during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, was used as the use case. Surgeons and trainees performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy interacted with the AI platform and completed a 5-point Likert scale survey to evaluate the educational value, usability and design of the platform.

Results: Twenty participants (11 surgeons and 9 trainees) evaluated the platform intraoperatively (n = 10) and postoperatively (n = 11). The majority agreed or strongly agreed that AI is an effective adjunct to surgical training (81%; neutral = 10%), effective for providing real-time feedback (70%; neutral = 20%), postoperative feedback (73%; neutral = 27%), and capable of improving surgeon confidence (67%; neutral = 29%). Only 40% (neutral = 50%) and 57% (neutral = 43%) believe that the tool is effective in improving intraoperative decisions and performance, or beneficial for patient care, respectively. Overall, 38% (neutral = 43%) reported they would use this platform consistently if available. The majority agreed or strongly agreed that the platform was easy to use (81%; neutral = 14%) and has acceptable resolution (62%; neutral = 24%), while 30% (neutral = 20%) reported that it disrupted the OR workflow, and 20% (neutral = 0%) reported significant time lag. All respondents reported that such a system should be available "on-demand" to turn on/off at their discretion.

Conclusions: Most found AI to be a useful tool for providing support and feedback to surgeons, despite several implementation obstacles. The study findings will inform the future design and usability of this technology in order to optimize its clinical impact and adoption by end-users.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Computer vision; Deep learning; Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Machine learning; Patient safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. WHO (2009) WHO Guidelines for safe surgery 2009: safe surgery saves lives. WHO Guidelines approved by the Guidelines Review Committee. WHO, Geneva
    1. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG et al (1991) Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 324(6):370–6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, Blais R, Brown A, Cox J et al (2004) The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 170(11):1678–1686 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Forster AJ, Asmis TR, Clark HD, Al Saied G, Code CC, Caughey SC et al (2004) Ottawa Hospital Patient Safety Study: incidence and timing of adverse events in patients admitted to a Canadian teaching hospital. CMAJ 170(8):1235–1240 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Khalid MU, Laplante S, Madani A (2022) Machines with vision for intraoperative guidance during gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Front Med (Lausanne) 9:1025382 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources