Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Surgery utilizing artificial intelligence technology: why we should not rule it out

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Surgery Today Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent advances in optical and robotic technologies have given surgeons high-definition eyes and precision hands that perform beyond human capabilities. This has expanded the scope of minimally invasive surgery and increased opportunities for surgery in high-risk situations; however, absolute surgical safety has not yet been achieved. Deficiencies in human performance are associated with surgical adverse events and advanced surgery places stress on surgeons and affect their concentration, causing not only novice surgeons with limited experience, but even skilled surgeons, to make misrecognition and decision-making errors. Therefore, the issue of “surgical comfort” for surgeons cannot be ignored. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI), which is designed to mimic the function of the human brain, has been developed in various fields to assist humans. Computer vision, a visual assistive technology that uses AI, is being applied to surgery and will become available in the near future. AI-controlled robots cannot be expected to replace surgeons, because surgeons operate with higher brain functions that integrate all their abilities, including the senses of humanity, mission, and ethics. However, if there is a way to reduce the mental and physical burden on surgeons by utilizing AI technology, then it should not be ruled out.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Infographic: defining the 6 levels of self-driving autonomy. 2021. https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/infographic-defining-the-6-levels-of-self-driving-autonomy. Accessed 15 Aug 2022

  2. Subaru. Survey reveals Subaru vehicles equipped with EyeSight had 60% fewer accidents in Japan (in Japanese). https://www.subaru.jp/safety/eyesight/. Accessed 15 Aug 2022

  3. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. Current situation and issues concerning crew members, etc. in Japan (in Japanese). 2013. https://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001019364.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2022

  4. PlaneCrashInfo.com. Home page. http://www.planecrashinfo.com/index.html. Accessed 15 Aug 2022

  5. Shinohara H, Kurahashi Y, Ishida Y. Gastric equivalent of the ‘Holy Plane’ to standardize the surgical concept of stomach cancer to mesogastric excision: updating Jamieson and Dobson’s historic schema. Gastric Cancer. 2021;24:273–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2018 (5th edition). Gastric Cancer. 2021;24(1):1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hohenberger W, Weber K, Matzel K, Papadopoulos T, Merkel S. Standardized surgery for colonic cancer: complete mesocolic excision and central ligation–technical notes and outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11:354–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Heald RJ. The ‘Holy Plane’ of rectal surgery. J R Soc Med. 1988;81:503–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sasako M, Sano T, Yamamoto S, Kurokawa Y, Nashimoto A, Kurita A, et al. D2 lymphadenectomy alone or with para-aortic nodal dissection for gastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:453–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sano T, Sasako M, Mizusawa J, Yamamoto S, Katai H, Yoshikawa T, et al. Randomized controlled trial to evaluate splenectomy in total gastrectomy for proximal gastric carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2017;265:277–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kurokawa Y, Doki Y, Mizusawa J, Terashima M, Katai H, Yoshikawa T, et al. Bursectomy versus omentectomy alone for resectable gastric cancer (JCOG1001): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3:460–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kitano S, Inomata M, Mizusawa J, Katayama H, Watanabe M, Yamamoto S, et al. Survival outcomes following laparoscopic versus open D3 dissection for stage II or III colon cancer (JCOG0404): a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2:261–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marubashi S, Takahashi A, Kakeji Y, Hasegawa H, Ueno H, Eguchi S, et al. Surgical outcomes in gastroenterological surgery in Japan: report of the national clinical database 2011–2019. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2021;5:639–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Uyama I, Suda K, Nakauchi M, Kinoshita T, Noshiro H, Takiguchi S, et al. Clinical advantages of robotic gastrectomy for clinical stage I/II gastric cancer: a multi-institutional prospective single-arm study. Gastric Cancer. 2019;22:377–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Suliburk JW, Buck QM, Pirko CJ, Massarweh NN, Barshes NR, Singh H, et al. Analysis of human performance deficiencies associated with surgical adverse events. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2: e198067.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Boeing. Statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents, 1959–2008. 2009. https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/2716.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun 2022

  17. Yang GZ, Cambias J, Cleary K, Daimler E, Drake J, Dupont PE, et al. Medical robotics-Regulatory, ethical, and legal considerations for increasing levels of autonomy. Sci Robot. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aam8638.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rajpurkar P, Irvin J, Ball RL, Zhu K, Yang B, Mehta H, et al. Deep learning for chest radiograph diagnosis: a retrospective comparison of the CheXNeXt algorithm to practicing radiologists. PLoS Med. 2018;15: e1002686.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Bejnordi BE, Veta M, van Diest PJ, van Ginneken B, Karssemeijer N, Litjens G, et al. Diagnostic assessment of deep learning algorithms for detection of lymph node metastases in women with breast Cancer. JAMA. 2017;318:2199–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hashimoto DA, Rosman G, Rus D, Meireles OR. Artificial intelligence in surgery: promises and perils. Ann Surg. 2018;268:70–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hashimoto DA, Rosman G, Witkowski ER, Stafford C, Navarette-Welton AJ, Rattner DW, et al. Computer vision analysis of intraoperative video: automated recognition of operative steps in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Ann Surg. 2019;270:414–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kitaguchi D, Takeshita N, Matsuzaki H, Oda T, Watanabe M, Mori K, et al. Automated laparoscopic colorectal surgery workflow recognition using artificial intelligence: experimental research. Int J Surg. 2020;79:88–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Luongo F, Hakim R, Nguyen JH, Anandkumar A, Hung AJ. Deep learning-based computer vision to recognize and classify suturing gestures in robot-assisted surgery. Surgery. 2021;169:1240–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bodenstedt S, Wagner M, Mündermann L, Kenngott H, Müller-Stich B, Breucha M, et al. Prediction of laparoscopic procedure duration using unlabeled, multimodal sensor data. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2019;14:1089–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jermyn M, Desroches J, Mercier J, Tremblay MA, St-Arnaud K, Guiot MC, et al. Neural networks improve brain cancer detection with Raman spectroscopy in the presence of operating room light artifacts. J Biomed Optic. 2016;21: 094002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tokuyasu T, Iwashita Y, Matsunobu Y, Kamiyama T, Ishikake M, Sakaguchi S, et al. Development of an artificial intelligence system using deep learning to indicate anatomical landmarks during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2020;35:1651–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Yamazaki Y, Kanaji S, Matsuda T, Oshikiri T, Nakamura T, Suzuki S, et al. Automated surgical instrument detection from laparoscopic gastrectomy video images using an open source convolutional neural network platform. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230:725-32.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Madani A, Namazi B, Altieri M, Hashimoto DA, Rivera MA, Pucher PH, et al. Artificial intelligence for intraoperative guidance: using semantic segmentation to identify surgical anatomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mascagni P, Vardazaryan A, Alapatt D, Urade T, Emre T, Fiorillo C, et al. Artificial intelligence for surgical safety: automatic assessment of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy using deep learning. Ann Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mascagni P, Alapatt D, Urabe T, Vardazaryan A, Mutter D, Marescaux J, et al. A computer vision platform to automatically locate critical events in surgical videos: documenting safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg. 2021;274:e93–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Shinohara H, Kurahashi Y, Haruta S, Ishida Y, Sasako M. Universalization of the operative strategy by systematic mesogastric excision for stomach cancer with that for total mesorectal excision and complete mesocolic excision colorectal counterparts. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2017;2:28–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Kumazu Y, Kobayashi N, Kitamura N, Rayan E, Neculoiu P, Misumi T, et al. Automated segmentation by deep learning of loose connective tissue fibers to define safe dissection planes in robot-assisted gastrectomy. Sci Rep. 2021;11:21198.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Sartorius - cell instance segmentation: detect single neuronal cells in microscopy images. https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/sartorius-cell-instance-segmentation/overview. Accessed 15 Aug 2022

  34. Anaut. https://anaut-surg.com. Accessed 15 Aug 2022

  35. Mirnezami R, Ahmed A. Surgery 3.0, artificial intelligence and the next-generation surgeon. Br J Surg. 2018;105:463–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI Grant Number 22H03153).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Hyogo Medical University, 11 Mukogawa-cho, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, 663-8501, Japan

    Hisashi Shinohara

Authors
  1. Hisashi Shinohara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hisashi Shinohara.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shinohara, H. Surgery utilizing artificial intelligence technology: why we should not rule it out. Surg Today 53, 1219–1224 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-022-02601-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-022-02601-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation