Victor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom; Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, United Kingdom.
Victor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom; Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS), London, United Kingdom.
World Neurosurg. 2022 Aug;164:e884-e898. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.05.062. Epub 2022 May 24.
Invasive brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) require neurosurgical implantation, which confers a range of risks. Despite this situation, no studies have assessed the acceptability of invasive BCIs among the neurosurgical team. This study aims to establish baseline knowledge of BCIs within the neurosurgical team and identify attitudes toward different applications of invasive BCI.
A 2-stage cross-sectional international survey of the neurosurgical team (neurosurgeons, anesthetists, and operating room nurses) was conducted. Results from the first, qualitative, survey were used to guide the second-stage quantitative survey, which assessed acceptability of invasive BCI applications. Five-part Likert scales were used to collect quantitative data. Surveys were distributed internationally via social media and collaborators.
A total of 108 qualitative responses were collected. Themes included the promise of BCIs positively affecting disease targets, concerns regarding stability, and an overall positive emotional reaction to BCI technology. The quantitative survey generated 538 responses from 32 countries. Baseline knowledge of BCI technology was poor, with 9% claiming to have a good or expert knowledge of BCIs. Acceptability of invasive BCI for rehabilitative purposes was >80%. Invasive BCI for augmentation in healthy populations divided opinion.
The neurosurgical team's view of the acceptability of invasive BCI was divided across a range of indications. Some applications (e.g., stroke rehabilitation) were viewed as more appropriate than other applications (e.g., augmentation for military use). This range in views highlights the need for stakeholder consultation on acceptable use cases along with regulation and guidance to govern initial BCI implantations if patients are to realize the potential benefits.
侵入性脑机接口（BCI）需要神经外科植入，这带来了一系列风险。尽管如此，尚无研究评估神经外科团队对侵入性 BCI 的可接受性。本研究旨在确定神经外科团队对 BCI 的基本认识，并确定对不同侵入性 BCI 应用的态度。
对神经外科团队（神经外科医生、麻醉师和手术室护士）进行了 2 阶段的国际横断面调查。第一阶段定性调查的结果用于指导第二阶段的定量调查，该调查评估了侵入性 BCI 应用的可接受性。使用 5 分量表收集定量数据。调查通过社交媒体和合作者在国际上分发。
共收集了 108 份定性回复。主题包括 BCI 积极影响疾病靶点的前景、对稳定性的担忧以及对 BCI 技术的整体积极情绪反应。定量调查从 32 个国家获得了 538 份回复。BCI 技术的基础知识较差，9%的人声称对 BCI 有很好或专家级的了解。康复目的的侵入性 BCI 的可接受性>80%。健康人群的侵入性 BCI 增强意见不一。
神经外科团队对侵入性 BCI 的可接受性的看法因各种适应症而存在分歧。一些应用（例如，中风康复）比其他应用（例如，军事用途的增强）更合适。这种观点的差异突出表明，需要就可接受的使用案例进行利益相关者协商，并在监管和指导方面进行管理，以规范初始 BCI 植入，如果要使患者实现潜在的益处。
