Understanding Surgeons' Reluctance to Adopt Intraoperative Coronary Graft Verification Procedures: A Literature Review Combined to AI-Driven Insights Under Human Supervision.

Abstract

Background: Intraoperative graft verification in coronary surgery is accepted worldwidand equally discussed. In spite of multiple sources of evidence published up to now in favor of clinical benefits following the use of the procedure, there is a persistent skepticism in adopting the available technologies. The object of the present review is to analyze the reluctance of surgeons toward the adoption of assessment methods. Materials and Method: A thorough literature review was carried out on Google Scholar based on the results obtained from AI's answer to the question about the reasons for that reluctance. We took advantage of using ChatGPT-4 since the research based on PubMed Central alone was not able to return a detailed response, maybe because the reasons for the reluctance are veiled in the text of the published papers. Through the items suggested by AI and taken from the literature, we deepened the research, pointing attention to the issues published so far about the various technologies. Results: There are many convincing pieces of evidence about the utility of intraoperative graft control in coronary surgery, involving improved clinical outcome, efficacy and safety, and social cost saving. The opinion that arose through this analysis is that, beyond the objective difficulties in utilizing some technologies and the equally objective limitations of an economic and organizational nature, the reluctance is the result of a real unwillingness based on the various implications that the discovery of the technical error entails. Conclusions: This negative attitude, in light of the convincing scientific and clinical evidence published up to now, appears to overwhelm the benefits for patients.