Real-Time multifaceted artificial intelligence vs In-Person instruction in teaching surgical technical skills: a randomized controlled trial.

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.

Effect of Feedback Modality on Simulated Surgical Skills Learning Using Automated Educational Systems- A Four-Arm Randomized Control Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To explore optimal feedback methodologies to enhance trainee skill acquisition in simulated surgical bimanual skills learning during brain tumor resections. HYPOTHESES: (1) Providing feedback results in better learning outcomes in teaching surgical technical skill when compared to practice alone with no tailored performance feedback. (2) Providing more visual and visuospatial feedback results in better learning outcomes when compared to providing numerical feedback. DESIGN: A prospective 4-parallel-arm randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Neurosurgical Simulation and Artificial Intelligence Learning Centre, McGill University, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Medical students (n = 120) from 4 Quebec medical schools. RESULTS: Participants completed a virtually simulated tumor resection task 5 times while receiving 1 of 4 feedback based on their group allocation: (1) practice-alone without feedback, (2) numerical feedback, (3) visual feedback, and (4) visuospatial feedback. Outcome measures were participants' scores on 14-performance metrics and the number of expert benchmarks achieved during each task. There were no significant differences in the first task which determined baseline performance. A statistically significant interaction between feedback allocation and task repetition was found on the number of benchmarks achieved, F (10.558, 408.257)=3.220, p < 0.001. Participants in all feedback groups significantly improved their performance compared to baseline. The visual feedback group achieved significantly higher number of benchmarks than the practice-alone group by the third repetition of the task, p = 0.005, 95%CI [0.42 3.25]. Visual feedback and visuospatial feedback improved performance significantly by the second repetition of the task, p = 0.016, 95%CI [0.19 2.71] and p = 0.003, 95%CI [0.4 2.57], respectively. CONCLUSION: Simulations with autonomous visual computer assistance may be effective pedagogical tools in teaching bimanual operative skills via visual and visuospatial feedback information delivery.

AI in Surgical Curriculum Design and Unintended Outcomes for Technical Competencies in Simulation Training.

Importance: To better elucidate the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in surgical skills training requires investigations in the potential existence of a hidden curriculum. Objective: To assess the pedagogical value of AI-selected technical competencies and their extended effects in surgical simulation training. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a follow-up of a randomized clinical trial conducted at the Neurosurgical Simulation and Artificial Intelligence Learning Centre at the Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Surgical performance metrics of medical students exposed to an AI-enhanced training curriculum were compared with a control group of participants who received no feedback and with expert benchmarks. Cross-sectional data were collected from January to April 2021 from medical students and from March 2015 to May 2016 from experts. This follow-up secondary analysis was conducted from June to September 2022. Participants included medical students (undergraduate year 0-2) in the intervention cohorts and neurosurgeons to establish expertise benchmarks. Exposure: Performance assessment and personalized feedback by an intelligent tutor on 4 AI-selected learning objectives during simulation training. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were unintended performance outcomes, measured by significant within-participant difference from baseline in 270 performance metrics in the intervention cohort that was not observed in the control cohort. Results: A total of 46 medical students (median [range] age, 22 [18-27] years; 27 [59%] women) and 14 surgeons (median [range] age, 45 [35-59] years; 14 [100%] men) were included in this study, and no participant was lost to follow-up. Feedback on 4 AI-selected technical competencies was associated with additional performance change in 32 metrics over the entire procedure and 20 metrics during tumor removal that was not observed in the control group. Participants exposed to the AI-enhanced curriculum demonstrated significant improvement in safety metrics, such as reducing the rate of healthy tissue removal (mean difference, -7.05 × 10-5 [95% CI, -1.09 × 10-4 to -3.14 × 10-5] mm3 per 20 ms; P < .001) and maintaining a focused bimanual control of the operative field (mean difference in maximum instrument divergence, -4.99 [95% CI, -8.48 to -1.49] mm, P = .006) compared with the control group. However, negative unintended effects were also observed. These included a significantly lower velocity and acceleration in the dominant hand (velocity: mean difference, -0.13 [95% CI, -0.17 to -0.09] mm per 20 ms; P < .001; acceleration: mean difference, -2.25 × 10-2 [95% CI, -3.20 × 10-2 to -1.31 × 10-2] mm per 20 ms2; P < .001) and a significant reduction in the rate of tumor removal (mean difference, -4.85 × 10-5 [95% CI, -7.22 × 10-5 to -2.48 × 10-5] mm3 per 20 ms; P < .001) compared with control. These unintended outcomes diverged students' movement and efficiency performance metrics away from the expertise benchmarks. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of medical students, an AI-enhanced curriculum for bimanual surgical skills resulted in unintended changes that improved performance in safety but negatively affected some efficiency metrics. Incorporating AI in course design requires ongoing assessment to maintain transparency and foster evidence-based learning objectives.

Performance in a Simulated Virtual Reality Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Task: Disc Residual, Rate of Removal, and Efficiency Analyses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is among the most common spine procedures. The Sim-Ortho virtual reality simulator platform contains a validated ACDF simulated task for performance assessment. This study aims to develop a methodology to extract three-dimensional data and reconstruct and quantitate specific simulated disc tissues to generate novel metrics to analyze performance metrics of skilled and less skilled participants. METHODS: We used open-source platforms to develop a methodology to extract three-dimensional information from ACDF simulation data. Metrics generated included, efficiency index, disc volumes removed from defined regions, and rate of tissue removal from superficial, central, and deep disc regions. A pilot study was performed to assess the utility of this methodology to assess expertise during the ACDF simulated procedure. RESULTS: The system outlined, extracts data allowing the development of a methodology which accurately reconstructs and quantitates 3-dimensional disc volumes. In the pilot study, data sets from 27 participants, divided into postresident, resident, and medical student groups, allowed assessment of multiple novel metrics, including efficiency index (surgical time spent in actively removing disc), where the postresident group spent 61.8% of their time compared with 53% and 30.2% for the resident and medical student groups, respectively ( P = .01). During the annulotomy component, the postresident group removed 47.4% more disc than the resident groups and 102% more than the medical student groups ( P = .03). CONCLUSION: The methodology developed in this study generates novel surgical procedural metrics from 3-dimensional data generated by virtual reality simulators and can be used to assess surgical performance.

Nondominant Hand Skills Spatial and Psychomotor Analysis During a Complex Virtual Reality Neurosurgical Task-A Case Series Study.

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality surgical simulators provide detailed psychomotor performance data, allowing qualitative and quantitative assessment of hand function. The nondominant hand plays an essential role in neurosurgery in exposing the operative area, assisting the dominant hand to optimize task execution, and hemostasis. Outlining expert-level nondominant hand skills may be critical to understand surgical expertise and aid learner training. OBJECTIVE: To (1) provide validity for the simulated bimanual subpial tumor resection task and (2) to use this simulation in qualitative and quantitative evaluation of nondominant hand skills for bipolar forceps utilization. METHODS: In this case series study, 45 right-handed participants performed a simulated subpial tumor resection using simulated bipolar forceps in the nondominant hand for assisting the surgery and hemostasis. A 10-item questionnaire was used to assess task validity. The nondominant hand skills across 4 expertise levels (neurosurgeons, senior trainees, junior trainees, and medical students) were analyzed by 2 visual models and performance metrics. RESULTS: Neurosurgeon median (range) overall satisfaction with the simulated scenario was 4.0/5.0 (2.0-5.0). The visual models demonstrated a decrease in high force application areas on pial surface with increased expertise level. Bipolar-pia mater interactions were more focused around the tumoral region for neurosurgeons and senior trainees. These groups spent more time using the bipolar while interacting with pia. All groups spent significantly higher time in the left upper pial quadrant than other quadrants. CONCLUSION: This work introduces new approaches for the evaluation of nondominant hand skills which may help surgical trainees by providing both qualitative and quantitative feedback.

Effect of Artificial Intelligence Tutoring vs Expert Instruction on Learning Simulated Surgical Skills Among Medical Students: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To better understand the emerging role of artificial intelligence (AI) in surgical training, efficacy of AI tutoring systems, such as the Virtual Operative Assistant (VOA), must be tested and compared with conventional approaches. Objective: To determine how VOA and remote expert instruction compare in learners' skill acquisition, affective, and cognitive outcomes during surgical simulation training. Design, Setting, and Participants: This instructor-blinded randomized clinical trial included medical students (undergraduate years 0-2) from 4 institutions in Canada during a single simulation training at McGill Neurosurgical Simulation and Artificial Intelligence Learning Centre, Montreal, Canada. Cross-sectional data were collected from January to April 2021. Analysis was conducted based on intention-to-treat. Data were analyzed from April to June 2021. Interventions: The interventions included 5 feedback sessions, 5 minutes each, during a single 75-minute training, including 5 practice sessions followed by 1 realistic virtual reality brain tumor resection. The 3 intervention arms included 2 treatment groups, AI audiovisual metric-based feedback (VOA group) and synchronous verbal scripted debriefing and instruction from a remote expert (instructor group), and a control group that received no feedback. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were change in procedural performance, quantified as Expertise Score by a validated assessment algorithm (Intelligent Continuous Expertise Monitoring System [ICEMS]; range, -1.00 to 1.00) for each practice resection, and learning and retention, measured from performance in realistic resections by ICEMS and blinded Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS; range 1-7). Secondary outcomes included strength of emotions before, during, and after the intervention and cognitive load after intervention, measured in self-reports. Results: A total of 70 medical students (41 [59%] women and 29 [41%] men; mean [SD] age, 21.8 [2.3] years) from 4 institutions were randomized, including 23 students in the VOA group, 24 students in the instructor group, and 23 students in the control group. All participants were included in the final analysis. ICEMS assessed 350 practice resections, and ICEMS and OSATS evaluated 70 realistic resections. VOA significantly improved practice Expertise Scores by 0.66 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.77) points compared with the instructor group and by 0.65 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.77) points compared with the control group (P < .001). Realistic Expertise Scores were significantly higher for the VOA group compared with instructor (mean difference, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.67] points; P < .001) and control (mean difference. 0.49 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61] points; P < .001) groups. Mean global OSATS ratings were not statistically significant among the VOA (4.63 [95% CI, 4.06 to 5.20] points), instructor (4.40 [95% CI, 3.88-4.91] points), and control (3.86 [95% CI, 3.44 to 4.27] points) groups. However, on the OSATS subscores, VOA significantly enhanced the mean OSATS overall subscore compared with the control group (mean difference, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.13 to 1.96] points; P = .02), whereas expert instruction significantly improved OSATS subscores for instrument handling vs control (mean difference, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.22 to 2.14]; P = .01). No significant differences in cognitive load, positive activating, and negative emotions were found. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, VOA feedback demonstrated superior performance outcome and skill transfer, with equivalent OSATS ratings and cognitive and emotional responses compared with remote expert instruction, indicating advantages for its use in simulation training. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04700384.

Best Practices Using Ex Vivo Animal Brain Models in Neurosurgical Education to Assess Surgical Expertise.

BACKGROUND: Ex vivo animal brain simulation models are being increasingly used for neurosurgical training because these models can replicate human brain conditions. The goal of the present report is to provide the neurosurgical community interested in using ex vivo animal brain simulation models with guidelines for comprehensively and rigorously conducting, documenting, and assessing this type of research. METHODS: In consultation with an interdisciplinary group of physicians and researchers involved in ex vivo models and a review of the literature on the best practices guidelines for simulation research, we developed the "ex vivo brain model to assess surgical expertise" (EVBMASE) checklist. The EVBMASE checklist provides a comprehensive quantitative framework for analyzing and reporting studies involving these models. We applied The EVBMASE checklist to the studies reported of ex vivo animal brain models to document how current ex vivo brain simulation models are used to train surgical expertise. RESULTS: The EVBMASE checklist includes defined subsections and a total score of 20, which can help investigators improve studies and provide readers with techniques to better assess the quality and any deficiencies of the research. We classified 18 published ex vivo brain models into modified (group 1) and nonmodified (group 2) models. The mean total EVBMASE score was 11 (55%) for group 1 and 4.8 (24.2%) for group 2, a statistically significant difference (P = 0.006) mainly attributed to differences in the simulation study design section (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings should help contribute to more rigorous application, documentation, and assessment of ex vivo brain simulation research.