ABSTRACT
Trainees develop surgical technical skills by learning from experts who provide context for successful task completion, identify potential risks, and guide correct instrument handling. This expert-guided training faces significant limitations in objectively assessing skills in real-time and tracking learning. It is unknown whether AI systems can effectively replicate nuanced real-time feedback, risk identification, and guidance in mastering surgical technical skills that expert instructors offer. This randomized controlled trial compared real-time AI feedback to in-person expert instruction. Ninety-seven medical trainees completed a 90-min simulation training with five practice tumor resections followed by a realistic brain tumor resection. They were randomly assigned into 1-real-time AI feedback, 2-in-person expert instruction, and 3-no real-time feedback. Performance was assessed using a composite-score and Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills rating, rated by blinded experts. Training with real-time AI feedback (n = 33) resulted in significantly better performance outcomes compared to no real-time feedback (n = 32) and in-person instruction (n = 32), .266, [95% CI .107 .425], p < .001; .332, [95% CI .173 .491], p = .005, respectively. Learning from AI resulted in similar OSATS ratings (4.30 vs 4.11, p = 1) compared to in-person training with expert instruction. Intelligent systems may refine the way operating skills are taught, providing tailored, quantifiable feedback and actionable instructions in real-time.
Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence , Clinical Competence , Humans , Female , Male , Adult , Simulation Training/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Subpial corticectomy involving complete lesion resection while preserving pial membranes and avoiding injury to adjacent normal tissues is an essential bimanual task necessary for neurosurgical trainees to master. We sought to develop an ex vivo calf brain corticectomy simulation model with continuous assessment of surgical instrument movement during the simulation. A case series study of skilled participants was performed to assess face and content validity to gain insights into the utility of this training platform, along with determining if skilled and less skilled participants had statistical differences in validity assessment. METHODS: An ex vivo calf brain simulation model was developed in which trainees performed a subpial corticectomy of three defined areas. A case series study assessed face and content validity of the model using 7-point Likert scale questionnaires. RESULTS: Twelve skilled and 11 less skilled participants were included in this investigation. Overall median scores of 6.0 (range 4.0-6.0) for face validity and 6.0 (range 3.5-7.0) for content validity were determined on the 7-point Likert scale, with no statistical differences between skilled and less skilled groups identified. CONCLUSION: A novel ex vivo calf brain simulator was developed to replicate the subpial resection procedure and demonstrated face and content validity.
