Citations

BACKGROUND: The creation of operative reports is a tedious documentation task that increases administrative burden, which is a potential driver of burnout. Additionally, operative reports are inherently subjective and may contain inaccuracies and incomplete information. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology have enabled computer vision systems to accurately detect operative steps on surgical video. We aim to develop a platform for the automated creation of video-based AI surgical operative reports in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. STUDY DESIGN: An AI computer vision algorithm was used to automatically detect surgical steps. Each step detected on video was mapped to prespecified text, which was then compiled into a narrative AI operative report. The accuracy of the AI operative reports was compared with operative reports written by surgeons, using expert review of raw surgical video footage as the ground truth. RESULTS: A total of 158 cases from a tertiary referral center were included. In surgeon operative reports, 84 cases (53.2%) had at least 1 discrepancy between the operative report and surgical video. Of these, 43 cases (27.2%) had a clinically significant discrepancy based on expert video review. In AI operative reports, 46 cases (29.1%) had at least 1 discrepancy between the operative report and surgical video. Of these, 20 cases (12.7%) had a clinically significant discrepancy. Overall accuracy was higher for AI operative reports compared with surgeon operative reports (87.3% vs 72.8%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Operative reports created by AI achieved higher accuracy than those written by surgeons. To our knowledge, this is the first report of automated video-based AI surgical documentation. Future studies are warranted to explore the potential for this novel tool to reduce documentation burden, improve operative report accuracy, promote surgical transparency, and decrease subjectivity in surgical documentation.

Background: Persistent mildly abnormal knee kinematics after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) is an ongoing clinical problem. Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of revision ACLR (rACLR), rACLR and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET), or isolated LET in patients with a grade ≥2 pivot shift after ACLR with an intact or partially torn graft and a new, symptomatic medial meniscal tear. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients with a new, symptomatic medial meniscal tear diagnosed after a primary ACLR was performed. Patients were included if they demonstrated a grade ≥2 pivot shift on physical examination with an intact or partially torn ACL graft. Exclusion criteria included complete graft rupture. The senior author’s management evolved in a practice change design from rACLR to rACLR with LET, to isolated LET over the study period. The primary outcomes were the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 2 years postoperatively. Results: A total of 47 patients, with 16 in the rACLR group, 12 in the rACLR and LET group, and 19 in the isolated LET group were included. Baseline characteristics between groups were similar. At 2 years, the rACLR group IKDC score was 86.1 ± 6.6 and was lower than the rACLR and LET group (91.9 ± 4.4; P = .009; 95% CI, –10.4 to −1.2) and the isolated LET group scores (91.7 ± 3.0; P = .004; 95% CI, –9.7 to −1.6). The Lysholm score was lower in the rACLR group (85.8 ± 6.3) when compared with the rACLR and LET group (91.8 ± 4.6; P = .03; 95% CI, –11.8 to −0.39). There was no difference in any Tegner scores at 2 years ( P = .09). Conclusion: In patients with grade ≥2 pivot shift after an ACLR with an intact or partially torn graft and a new, symptomatic medial meniscal tear, the addition of an LET with or without rACLR led to improved PROs compared with an isolated rACLR. An isolated LET in this patient population should be considered an acceptable treatment option.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Aggressive resection for primary tumors of the spine are associated with a high rate of adverse events (AEs), but the impact of AEs on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) remains unknown and is critical to the shared decision-making. Our primary objective was to assess the impact of surgical AEs on PROs using an international registry. Assessing the impact on clinical outcomes and identifying risk factors for AEs were our secondary objectives. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for a primary spinal tumor were selected through the Primary Tumor Research and Outcomes Network. Our primary outcome was the impact of AEs on PROs at 3 and 12 months after surgery (measured with Spinal Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire, Short-Form 36, and EuroQol 5 Dimension). We also assessed the impact on clinical outcomes (local control, surgical margins, readmission, reoperation, and mortality). We stratified our results according to severity of AEs, histology, and type of resection. RESULTS: 374 patients met inclusion criteria (219 males/155 females). The mean age of the cohort was 48.7 years. The most frequent histology was chordoma (37.3%) followed by chondrosarcoma (8.8%). Sixty-seven patients (17.9%) experienced at least 1 intraoperative AE and 117 patients (31.3%) had at least 1 postoperative AE within 3 months. Overall, 159 patients (42.5%) experienced AEs. The readmission rate was significantly higher in patients who experienced AEs (Any AE: 10.1% vs no AE: 1.9% within 3 months; P = <0.001). PROs were not significantly affected by AEs in most questionnaires. Local control, risk of reoperation, mortality, and achieving preplanned margins were similar between AE groups. CONCLUSION: The rate of surgical AEs is considerable in this population. Surgical AEs seem to be associated with a higher number of readmissions, but do not seem to result in significant differences in PROs or in a higher risk of reoperation, mortality, and failure to achieve preplanned margins.