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

Continuous Instrument Tracking in a Cerebral Corticectomy Ex Vivo Calf Brain Simulation Model: Face and Content Validation

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.

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.

Evaluation of a scoring system to assess proficiency in cerebral angiography for neuroendovascular surgery education

Objective

Cerebral angiography is indispensable for endovascular neurosurgeons. However, there is no established system to evaluate the competency of trainees. We established a scoring system and statistically analyzed its characteristics.

Methods

Endovascular neurosurgeons scored the operators of 177 cerebral angiography based on ten evaluation items. Preoperative explanation, device selection, and device assembly were classified as "preparation," communication with the patient, radiation protection and angiography system as "attention," and catheter operation, blood loss, procedure completion, and sheath insertion as "skill". The sum of the scores were compared using the Mann-Whitney test according to the status of the operator (trainee (TR), neurosurgeon (NS), or endovascular neurosurgeon (EVNS)).

Results

The highest average for each item was 0.89 for communication, and the lowest was 0.68 for catheter operation. The mean ± standard deviation of the total score was 7.82 ± 2.02, and scores by status were 7.08 ± 2.12 for TR, 8.32 ± 1.35 for NS, and 9.33 ± 1.20 for EVNS with significant differences among each status (p < 0.05). The sum scores of the preparation, attention, and skill sections also showed significant differences between each status except between NS and EVNS in the preparation section and TR and NS in the skill section (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

There were significant differences in the total score between statuses, suggesting that the scoring system may be an indicator of proficiency in cerebral angiography. It was suggested that dividing each item into preparation, attention, and skill sections may indicate the characteristics of proficiency.