A Cross-Sectional Study on AI-Assisted Versus Conventional Surgical Planning for Musculoskeletal Conditions and Postoperative Functional Recovery
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61919/90k9c217Keywords:
intelligence; brain tumour surgery; qualitative research; shared decision-making; uncertainty; trust; family surrogatesAbstract
Background: Artificial intelligence is being used more and more in the field of brain cancer treatment. It is used for scans predicting outcomes figuring out risks and planning operations. Whether people accept it in the clinic depends not on how well it works but also on how people understand if it is reliable how it talks to them what it is unsure about and who is responsible. Objective: The goal was to find out how patients the people who speak for them and brain surgeons saw the reliability of intelligence how it communicates, what it is unsure about who is responsible how the family is involved and how confident they are in decisions made with the help of AI during brain tumour surgery. Methods: A study was done where people were interviewed in places in Indonesia that treat brain cancer and brain tumour problems. Twenty-five people took part: ten patients, eight people who speak for them and seven brain surgeons. The interviews were not fixed but covered topics like how reliable they thought AI was whether doctors agreed or disagreed with it how sure they were, how the family was involved how confident they. What kinds of safety measures were acceptable. The interviews were between 45 and 75 minutes long. They were recorded, written down exactly as said, checked and made anonymous. The data were looked at using a method called thematic analysis. This included looking at each group comparing between groups and checking for cases that didn't fit. Results: Five main ideas came up. AI was seen as an opinion, not something that makes decisions on its own. Communication was about turning chances into results. People were confident even when they knew there was some uncertainty. Responsibility was something that involved patients their families and doctors. Conditions for control included how the AI works in the area if it is fair if people are accountable if it can be checked and if doctors can change what AI says. Trust was not complete. Depended on clear reasons for disagreement, between doctors and AI. Artificial intelligence was seen best when it helped doctors not when it took over. Trust depended on communication understanding uncertainty respecting the values of the patient working together with the family checking the AI and making sure people are responsible
References
1. Alanezi T, Li B, Al-Omran L, Alshabanah L, Alkhayal NK, Verma M, et al. Surgical outcomes through the patient's eyes: a scoping review of patient-reported outcome measures in surgery. 2025;313:120-30.
2. er n Universi TJ. DePalma Orthopaedic Society. Vol. 3, Issue 1. June 2025.
3. Orosz LD. Evaluating patient readiness for spine surgery: a cross-sectional study. 2025.
4. Enni JBA, Agrawal DK. Application of artificial intelligence and its subsets in various stages of knee arthroplasty from pre-op to post-op: an overview. 2025;7(1):96.
5. Wang Z, Wang Q, Wang W, Hu X, Zhang H, Zhao W, et al. Machine learning models for predicting patient satisfaction after adult spinal deformity surgery. 2026;1(aop):1-12.
6. Lumbar Spine Research Society 18th Annual Scientific Meeting, May 8-9, Chicago. 2025;42(5):1-97.
7. Lee YK, Yoon EJ, Kim TH, Kim JI, Kim JH. Musculoskeletal digital therapeutics and digital health rehabilitation: a global paradigm shift in orthopedic care. 2025;14(23):8467.
8. Kovoor JJ. Patient grit is associated with surgical recovery: a prospective study. 2024;94(S1):61-84.
9. Jayakumar P. Tools for high-value orthopaedic care delivery. 2023:12.
10. Podder D, Stala O, Hirani R, Karp AM, Etienne MJ. Comprehensive approaches to pain management in postoperative spinal surgery patients: advanced strategies and future directions. 2025;17(6):94.
11. Sakly H, Guetari R, Kraiem N, Alasbali NA, Al Agarni AJ. Enhancing surgical precision: a systematic review of wearable medical devices for assisted surgery. 2025;49(1):88.
12. Cohen SP, Wang EJ, Roybal A, Chen Y. Factors predicting outcomes from chronic pain management interventions. 2025;4(1):e001143.
13. Kumar R, Marla K, Sporn K, Paladugu P, Khanna A, Gowda C, et al. Emerging diagnostic approaches for musculoskeletal disorders: advances in imaging, biomarkers, and clinical assessment. 2025;15(13):1648.
14. Feierabend M, Wolfgart JM, Praster M, Danalache M, Migliorini F, Hofmann UK. Applications of machine learning and deep learning in musculoskeletal medicine: a narrative review. 2025;30(1):386.
15. Dionisi S, Giannetta N, Di Simone E, Ricciardi F, Liquori G, De Leo A, et al. The use of mHealth in orthopedic surgery: a scoping review. 2021;18(23):12549.
16. March MK, Roberts KE. Same patient but different worlds: a state-of-the-art review translating best practice psychosocial care from musculoskeletal care to the orthopaedic context. 2024;25(1):998.
17. Golinelli D, Polidoro F, Rosa S, Puzzo A, Guerra G, Raimondi S, et al. Evaluating the impact of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty on quality of care through patient-reported outcome measures in a third-level hospital in Italy: a prospective cohort study. 2025;52:32-42.
18. Boltaboyeva A, Baigarayeva Z, Imanbek B, Ozhikenov K, Getahun AJ, Aidarova T, et al. A review of innovative medical rehabilitation systems with scalable AI-assisted platforms for sensor-based recovery monitoring. 2025;15(12):6840.
19. Abuhaimed AK, Aneja AK, Jaremko JL, Hareendranathan AR, Dulai SK. Applications of artificial intelligence in pediatric orthopaedics. 2025:1-12.
20. Plavoukou T, Kasnesis P, Contiero Syropoulou A, Papagiannis G, Stasinopoulos D, Georgoudis G. Wearable sensor-based telerehabilitation versus conventional physiotherapy in knee OA: insights from the KneE-PAD pilot study. 2025;15(24):12988.
21. Diniz P, Grimm B, Garcia F, Fayad J, Ley C, Mouton C, et al. Digital twin systems for musculoskeletal applications: a current concepts review. 2025;33(5):1892-910.
22. Alrwaily M. Delivering musculoskeletal rehabilitation in the digital era: a perspective on clinical strategies for remote practice. Healthcare. 2025.
23. Thebuwanaarachchi ST. Translate and cross-culturally adapt the original English version of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale into the Sinhalese version. 2025;6(1):43-53.
24. Harihar A, Bhat NS, Kumar S, Yadav KH, Maiya GA. Effect of mobile application-based exercise program on pain and functional rehabilitation in osteoarthritis knee. 2025;59(11):1887-95.
25. Kunze KN. Generative artificial intelligence and musculoskeletal health care. 2025;21(3):248-56.
26. Manning L, Zmistowski B, Hadjispyrou S, Oliveira PR, Lizcano JD, Lastinger AM, et al. 2025 ICM: epidemiology, mortality, registries, public reporting, specialized treatment centers, and physical and psychological impact. 2025;41(1):S210-21.
27. Xie Y, Fu Z, Li P, Chen J, Zhang L, Liu Y, et al. Post-traumatic growth trajectories and influencing factors in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty: a prospective longitudinal study. 2025;16:1556829.
28. AlMarshad AY, Almudayfir MA, Alghamdi AM, Alshammari FF, Alkharaiji MA, Alsuliman MA, et al. Shoulder arthrodesis in the pediatric and adolescent population: a systematic review. 2025;9(2):170-6.
29. Matsuo H, Kubota M, Watabe Y, Naruse H, Shoji K, Kitade M, et al. Association between dynamic hip motion during gait and passive hip range of motion and muscle strength before and after total hip arthroplasty. 2025:104419.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Hassam Mehdi, Ahmad Waqar, Muhammad Hafeez Malik, Komal Kumari, Saad Sultan Qureshi, Tayyaba Fatima (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© The Authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
.png)
