Abstract
Introduction The internet age has broadened the horizons of modern medicine, and the ever-increasing scope of artificial intelligence (AI) has made information about healthcare, common pathologies, and available treatment options much more accessible to the wider population. Patient autonomy relies on clear, accurate, and user-friendly information to give informed consent to an intervention. Our paper aims to outline the quality, readability, and accuracy of readily available information produced by AI relating to common foot and ankle procedures. Materials and methods A retrospective qualitative analysis of procedure-specific information relating to three common foot and ankle orthopedic procedures: ankle arthroscopy, ankle arthrodesis/fusion, and a gastrocnemius lengthening procedure was undertaken. Patient information leaflets (PILs) created by The British Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (BOFAS) were compared to ChatGPT responses for readability, quality, and accuracy of information. Four language tools were used to assess readability: the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease (FKRE) score, the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), the Gunning fog score (GFS), and the simple measure of gobbledygook (SMOG) index. Quality and accuracy were determined by using the DISCERN tool by five independent assessors. Results PILs produced by AI had significantly lower FKRE scores when compared to BOFAS -40.4 (SD: ±7.69) compared to 91.9 (SD: ±2.24) (p ≤ 0.0001), indicating poor readability of AI-generated text. DISCERN scoring highlighted a statistically significant improvement in accuracy and quality of human-generated information across two PILs with a mean score of 55.06 compared to 46.8. FKGL scoring indicated that the required grade of students to understand AI responses was consistently higher than compared to information leaflets at 11.7 versus 1.1 (p ≤ 0.0001). The number of years spent in education required to understand the ChatGPT-produced PILs was significantly higher in both GFS (14.46 vs. 2.0 years) (p < 0.0001) and SMOG (11.0 vs. 3.06 years) (p < 0.0001). Conclusion Despite significant advances in the implementation of AI in surgery, AI-generated PILs for common foot and ankle surgical procedures currently lack sufficient quality, depth, and readability - this risks leaving patients misinformed regarding upcoming procedures. We conclude that information from trusted professional bodies should be used to complement a clinical consultation, as there currently lacks sufficient evidence to support the routine implementation of AI-generated information into the consent process.