Observational Study
Copyright
©The Author(s) 2024. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Orthop. Nov 18, 2024; 15(11): 1023-1035
Published online Nov 18, 2024. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v15.i11.1023
Table 1 Participants’ demographic characteristics, n (%)
Variables Subcategory Frequency (n = 71) Age in years < 40 33 (46.5) 40-60 32 (45.1) > 60 6 (8.5) Experience as a pediatric orthopedic surgeon in years < 10 41 (57.8) 11-20 21 (29.6) > 20 9 (12.7) Main hospital affiliation University 15 (21.1) 1 Military14 (19.7) Ministry of health 26 (36.6) Specialist or medical city 11 (15.5) Private 5 (7.0) Region of practice Central 29 (40.9) Northern 2 (2.8) Southern 9 (12.7) Eastern 13 (18.3) Western 13 (18.3) 2 Outside Saudi Arabia5 (7.0) Place of fellowship Saudi Arabia 31 (43.7) Northern America (Canada and United States) 23 (32.4) Europe 11 (15.5) 3 Others6 (8.5)
Table 2 Participants’ questionnaire responses, n (%)
Topical category Response categories and data Perceptions towards AI Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree AI can enhance diagnostic accuracy in pediatric orthopedic cases 2 (2.8) 6 (8.5) 30 (42.3) 25 (35.2) 8 (11.3) AI has the potential to improve treatment planning for pediatric orthopedic conditions 1 (1.4) 4 (5.6) 26 (36.6) 34 (47.9) 6 (8.5) AI integration in pediatric orthopedics can enhance surgical outcomes 1 (1.4) 9 (12.7) 32 (45.1) 23 (32.4) 6 (8.5) AI applications can save time and enhance productivity in pediatric orthopedic surgery 2 (2.8) 1 (1.4) 24 (33.8) 34 (47.9) 10 (14.1) Familiarity with AI Not at all familiar Slightly familiar Moderately familiar Very familiar Extremely familiar How familiar are you with AI in medicine? 18 (25.4) 26 (36.6) 24 (33.8) 2 (2.8) 1 (1.4) Willingness to adopt AI tools Very unwilling Somewhat unwilling Neutral Somewhat willing Very willing How willing are you to adopt AI-based tools or systems in your clinical practice, if they are proven to be safe and effective? 0 (0) 0 (0) 9 (12.7) 30 (42.3) 32 (45.1) Factors affecting decision making Not important at all Slightly important Moderately important Quite important Highly important Evidence-based research supporting AI in pediatric orthopedics 0 (0) 4 (5.6) 13 (18.3) 19 (26.8) 35 (49.3) Trust in the accuracy of AI-driven diagnostics 1 (1.4) 6 (8.5) 12 (16.9) 21 (29.6) 31 (43.7) Support and training provided for AI utilization 1 (1.4) 0 (0) 13 (18.3) 18 (25.4) 39 (54.9) Protection of patient privacy and data security with AI implementation 1 (1.4) 2 (2.8) 4 (5.6) 16 (22.5) 48 (67.6) Ease of integration of AI systems into current practice 0 (0.0) 2 (2.8) 13 (18.3) 22 (31.0) 34 (47.9) Interest in learning about AI Very uninterested Somewhat uninterested Neutral Somewhat interested Very interested How interested are you in learning more about AI and how to apply them in your clinical practice? 0 (0) 3 (4.2) 8 (11.3) 24 (33.8) 36 (50.7)
Table 3 Participants’ questionnaire responses continued, n (%)
Topical category Response categories and data 1 Which of the following AI tools have you encountered?AI speech-to-text tools (e.g. , mobius conveyor, the nuance dragon ambient experience, augmedix) 23 (32.4) Image analysis tools (e.g. , nuance’s precision imaging network, zebra medical vision) 16 (22.5) AI clinical decision support tools (e.g. , Sepsis Watch, ChatGPT 35/4) 14 (19.7) Surgical support tools (e.g. , Da Vinci surgical system, ActivSight system) 10 (14.1) None of the above 34 (47.9) Would you recommend a tested and proven AI tool in pediatric orthopedic surgery to other clinicians? Yes 64 (91.4) No 6 (8.6) What role do you think AI will play in pediatric orthopedic surgery over the next 5 to 10 years? It will not have a significant impact 2 (2.8) It will be used in a limited capacity 31 (43.7) It will become a fundamental part of the field 23 (32.4) Uncertain 15 (21.1)
Table 4 Factors related to the domains in the study
Variables Subcategory Familiarity Perception Willingness Decision-making Median (IQR) 4 P valueMedian (IQR) 4 P valueMedian (IQR) 4 P valueMedian (IQR) 4 P valueAge in years < 40 2.0 (1) 1.722 (0.423) 19.0 (5) 1.723 (0.422) 5.0 (1) 0.619 (0.734) 23.0 (7) 0.030 (0.985) 40-60 2.0 (2) 18.5 (5) 5.0 (1) 22.5 (5) > 60 1.5 (2) 16.0 (5) 5.0 (2) 21.0 (7) Experience in years < 10 2.0 (1) 7.326 (0.026)a 18.0 (4) 7.037 (0.030)a 5.0 (1) 1.409 (0.494) 23.0 (6) 0.287 (0.866) 11-20 3.0 (1) 20.0 (5) 5.0 (1) 22.0 (5) > 20 1.0 (2) 15.0 (5) 5.0 (2) 21.0 (8) Hospital affiliation University 3.0 (2) 1.575 (0.813) 18.0 (6) 6.079 (0.193) 6.0 (1) 1.141 (0.888) 22.0 (6) 1.744 (0.783) 1 Military2.0 (1) 19.5 (3) 5.0 (1) 24.0 (6) Ministry of Health 2.0 (2) 18.5 (4) 5.0 (1) 23.0 (6) 2 Specialist2.0 (1) 17.0 (3) 5.0 (1) 21.0 (9) Private 2.0 (2) 15.0 (4) 5.0 (1) 19.0 (6) Region Central region 3.0 (1) 9.019 (0.108) 19.0 (6) 3.464 (0.629) 5.0 (1) 6.033 (0.303) 24.0 (6) 8.445 (0.133) Northern 2.5 (0) 18.5 (0) 6.0 (0) 24.5 (0) Southern 1.0 (2) 17.0 (4) 5.0 (2) 22.0 (6) Eastern 2.0 (2) 20.0 (6) 6.0 (2) 22.0 (5) Western 2.0 (1) 17.0 (6) 5.0 (2) 19.0 (10) Gulf countries 2.0 (1) 17.0 (3) 5.0 (1) 21.0 (5) Fellowship Saudi Arabia 2.0 (2) 1.055 (0.788) 17.0 (6) 1.063 (0.786) 5.0 (1) 2.053 (0.561) 24.0 (6) 5.545 (0.136) 3 Northern America2.0 (1) 19.0 (5) 5.0 (1) 21.0 (6) Europe 2.0 (2) 20.0 (6) 6.0 (1) 22.0 (5) Others 1.5 (2) 17.5 (4) 5.5 (1) 20.0 (8) Future outlook Significant impact 1.5 (0) 2.219 (0.528) 13.0 (0) 9.985 (0.019)a 4.5 (0) 1.452 (0.693) 17.0 (0) 5.572 (0.134) Limited capacity 2.0 (1) 17.0 (6) 5.0 (1) 23.0 (8) Fundamental part 2.0 (1) 20.0 (4) 6.0 (1) 21.0 (5) Uncertain 2.0 (2) 17.0 (6) 5.0 (1) 25.0 (5)
Table 5 Bivariate correlation among study domains
Domain Familiarity Perception Willingness Decision-making Familiarity 1.000 (0) 0.568 (< 0.001) 0.262 (0.027) 0.269 (0.023) Perception 0.568 (< 0.001) 1.000 (0) 0.560 (< 0.001) 0.456 (< 0.001) Willingness 0.262 (0.027) 0.560 (< 0.001) 1.000 (0) 0.430 (< 0.001) Decision-making 0.269 (0.023) 0.356 (< 0.001) 0.430 (< 0.001) 1.000 (0)