Knowledge, Expectation and Concerns Regarding Artificial Intelligence in Surgery Among Surgeons, Medical Officers and General Physicians in Lahore, Pakistan: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence is increasingly influencing clinical decision-making, diagnostic support, surgical planning, intraoperative guidance, and healthcare workflow optimization; however, its successful integration depends on clinicians’ knowledge, expectations, perceived risks, and acceptance. Objective: This study assessed the knowledge, expectations, implementation preferences, and concerns regarding artificial intelligence in surgical and clinical practice among surgeons, medical officers, and general physicians in Lahore, Pakistan. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted among 250 healthcare professionals working in academic, government, and private hospitals in Lahore. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire adapted from a validated survey and covering demographics, AI knowledge, surgical expectations, implementation preferences, liability concerns, autonomous surgery acceptance, and Likert-scale attitudes. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 27, with descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests applied where appropriate. Results: Among respondents, 109 were surgeons, 123 were medical officers, and 18 were general physicians. Overall, 60.4% reported clinical use of AI, and 57.2% followed AI developments through professional or scientific journals. The most favored AI applications were intraoperative image processing, surgical planning, and outpatient clinical support. Most respondents supported Ministry of Health involvement in AI implementation. Surgeons were most commonly considered liable for AI-assisted complications, while 45.2% were willing to undergo fully autonomous robotic gallbladder surgery. Academic hospital surgeons reported significantly higher concern scores than government and private hospital surgeons. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals in Lahore showed favorable attitudes toward AI, but safe implementation requires structured education, regulatory oversight, liability clarification, and context-specific clinical validation.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
1. Bellman R. An introduction to artificial intelligence: can computers think? San Francisco: Boyd & Fraser; 1978.
2. Hashimoto DA, Rosman G, Rus D, Meireles OR. Artificial intelligence in surgery: promises and perils. Ann Surg. 2018;268(1):70-6.
3. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature. 2015;521(7553):436-44.
4. Rajpurkar P, Chen E, Banerjee O, Topol EJ. AI in health and medicine. Nat Med. 2022;28(1):31-8.
5. Topol EJ. Preparing the healthcare workforce for the digital future. Lancet. 2023;401(10371):36-8.
6. Ayala Solares JR, Raimondi FED, Zhu Y, Rahimian F, Canoy D, Tran J, et al. Deep learning for electronic health records: a comparative review of multiple deep neural architectures. J Biomed Inform. 2020;101:103337.
7. McKinney SM, Sieniek M, Godbole V, Godwin J, Antropova N, Ashrafian H, et al. International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature. 2020;577(7788):89-94.
8. Coudray N, Ocampo PS, Sakellaropoulos T, Narula N, Snuderl M, Fenyö D, et al. Classification and mutation prediction from non-small cell lung cancer histopathology images using deep learning. Nat Med. 2018;24(10):1559-67.
9. Gulshan V, Peng L, Coram M, Stumpe MC, Wu D, Narayanaswamy A, et al. Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy. JAMA. 2016;316(22):2402-10.
10. Esteva A, Kuprel B, Novoa RA, Ko J, Swetter SM, Blau HM, et al. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature. 2017;542(7639):115-8.
11. Zhou XY, Guo Y, Shen M, Yang GZ. Application of artificial intelligence in surgery. Front Med. 2020;14(4):417-30.
12. Maier-Hein L, Eisenmann M, Sarikaya D, März K, Collins T, Malpani A, et al. Surgical data science: from concepts toward clinical translation. Med Image Anal. 2022;76:102306.
13. Noriega Aldave AP, Hashmi A, Shabbir M, Yaseen A, Khan S. Artificial intelligence in surgery: comprehensive review. Cureus. 2023;15(10):e47524.
14. Seenivasan L, Islam M, Kannan G, Ren H, Praneeth M. Surgical robot instrument detection using CNN. IEEE Access. 2022;10:3520-31.
15. Mirnezami R, Ahmed A. Surgery 3.0, artificial intelligence and the next-generation surgeon. Br J Surg. 2018;105(5):463-5.
16. Kelly CJ, Stokel-Walker C, Aldridge M. How will artificial intelligence transform clinical practice? BMJ. 2022;377:e071516.
17. Meskó B, Topol EJ. Regulatory oversight of large language models in healthcare. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):120.
18. Asan O, Bayrak AE, Choudhury A. Artificial intelligence and human trust in healthcare. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6):e15154.
19. Feretzakis G, Karlis G, Kolovou-Grontai G, Orlacchio A, Verykios VS. Attitudes toward AI adoption in clinical practice. Healthcare. 2022;10(9):1585.
20. Voskens FJ, Abbing JR, Ruys AT, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ. Perceptions of general surgeons on artificial intelligence. Artif Intell Surg. 2022;2:8-17.