Autonomous surgical robotic systems and the liability dilemma

Background: Advances in machine learning and robotics have allowed the development of increasingly autonomous robotic systems which are able to make decisions and learn from experience. This distribution of decisionmaking away from human supervision poses a legal challenge for determining liability. Methods: The iRobotSurgeon survey aimed to explore public opinion towards the issue of liability with robotic surgical systems. The survey included five hypothetical scenarios where a patient comes to harm and the respondent needs to determine who they believe is most responsible: the surgeon, the robot manufacturer, the hospital, or another party. Results: A total of 2,191 completed surveys were gathered evaluating 10,955 individual scenario responses from 78 countries spanning 6 continents. The survey demonstrated a pattern in which participants were sensitive to shifts from fully surgeon-controlled scenarios to scenarios in which robotic systems played a larger role in decision-making such that surgeons were blamed less. However, there was a limit to this shift with human surgeons still being ascribed blame in scenarios of autonomous robotic systems where humans had no role in decision-making. Importantly, there was no clear consensus among respondents where to allocate blame in the case of harm occurring from a fully autonomous system. Conclusions: The iRobotSurgeon Survey demonstrated a dilemma among respondents on who to blame when harm is caused by a fully autonomous surgical robotic system. Importantly, it also showed that the surgeon is ascribed blame even when they have had no role in decision-making which adds weight to concerns that human operators could act as “moral crumple zones” and bear the brunt of legal responsibility when a complex autonomous system causes harm

AI reflections in 2020

We invited authors of selected Comments and Perspectives published in Nature Machine Intelligence in the latter half of 2019 and first half of 2020 to describe how their topic has developed, what their thoughts are about the challenges of 2020, and what they look forward to in 2021.Postprint (author's final draft

More questions than answers to the diagnosis and management of cauda equina syndrome-Authors' reply

No abstract available

Subarachnoid haemorrhage with negative initial neurovascular imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Background: In patients with spontaneous subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH), a vascular cause for the bleed is not always found on initial investigations. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the delayed investigation strategies and clinical outcomes in these cases, often described as “non-aneurysmal” SAH (naSAH). Methods: A systematic review was performed in concordance with the PRISMA checklist. Pooled proportions of primary outcome measures were estimated using a random-effects model. Results: Fifty-eight studies were included (4473 patients). The cohort was split into perimesencephalic naSAH (PnaSAH) (49.9%), non-PnaSAH (44.7%) and radiologically negative SAH identified on lumbar puncture (5.4%). The commonest initial vascular imaging modality was digital subtraction angiography. A vascular abnormality was identified during delayed investigation in 3.9% [95% CI 1.9–6.6]. There was no uniform strategy for the timing or modality of delayed investigations. The pooled proportion of a favourable modified Rankin scale outcome (0–2) at 3–6 months following diagnosis was 92.0% [95% CI 86.0–96.5]. Complications included re-bleeding (3.1% [95% CI 1.5–5.2]), hydrocephalus (16.0% [95% CI 11.2–21.4]), vasospasm (9.6% [95% CI 6.5–13.3]) and seizure (3.5% [95% CI 1.7–5.8]). Stratified by bleeding pattern, we demonstrate a higher rate of delayed diagnoses (13.6% [95% CI 7.4–21.3]), lower proportion of favourable functional outcome (87.2% [95% CI 80.1–92.9]) and higher risk of complications for non-PnaSAH patients. Conclusion: This study highlights the heterogeneity in delayed investigations and outcomes for patients with naSAH, which may be influenced by the initial pattern of bleeding. Further multi-centre prospective studies are required to clarify optimal tailored management strategies for this heterogeneous group of patients

A prospective, multicentre study of external ventricular drainage-related infections in the United Kingdom and Ireland

Objectives External Ventricular Drain (EVD) insertion is a common neurosurgical procedure. EVD- related infection (ERI) is a major complication that can lead to morbidity and mortality. In this study, we aimed to establish a national ERI rate in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland and determine key factors influencing the infection risk. Methods A prospective multi-centre cohort study of EVD insertions in 21 neurosurgical units was performed over 6 months. The primary outcome measure was 30-day ERI. A Cox Regression Model was used for multivariate analysis to calculate Hazard Ratios (HR). Results A total of 495 EVD catheters were inserted into 452 patients with EVDs remaining in-situ for 4700 days (median 8 days; interquartile range 4-13). Of the catheters inserted, 188 (38%) were antibiotic-impregnated, 161 (32.5%) were plain and 146 (29.5%) were silver-bearing. A total of 46 ERIs occurred giving an infection risk of 9.3%. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that factors independently associated with increased infection risk included duration of EVD placement for ≥8 days [HR=2.47 (1.12-5.45); p=0.03], regular sampling (daily sampling [HR=4.73 (1.28-17.42), p=0.02] and alternate day sampling [HR=5.28 (2.25-12.38); p<0.01]). There was no association between catheter type or tunnelling distance and ERI. Conclusions In the UK and Ireland, the ERI rate was 9.3% during the study period. The study demonstrated that EVDs left in situ for ≥8 days and those sampled more frequently were associated with a higher risk of infection. Importantly, the study showed no significant difference in ERI risk between different catheter types