Cited by 217Soft Robotics and ApplicationsSurgical Simulation and TrainingArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Artificial intelligence and the future of surgical robotics

Panesar, Sandip, Cagle, Yvonne, Chander, Divya, Morey, Jose, Fernandez-Miranda, Juan, Kliot, Michel·2019·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

In 2016, Shademan et al reported complete in vivo, autonomous robotic anastomosis of porcine intestine using the Smart Tissue Autonomous Robot (STAR).1,2 Although conducted in a highly controlled experimental setting, STAR quantitatively outperformed human surgeons in a series of ex vivo and in vivo surgical tasks. These trials demonstrated nascent clinical viability of an autonomous soft-tissue surgical robot for the first time. Unlike conventional surgical robots which are controlled in real-time by humans and which have become commonplace in particular subspecialties, STAR was controlled by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, and received input from an array of visual and haptic sensors. Applications of AI to clinical data for diagnostic purposes have already begun to demonstrate capability approximating that of specialist physicians.3,4 Consequentially, clinical AI has received much attention from within and outside the medical community.5 The STAR trials give clinical AI a surgical context and provide a glimpse into the future, should autonomous surgical devices be further developed. Nevertheless, their development must be rationalized and, for widespread utilization, they must confer either technical or financial advantages over conventional surgical techniques. We henceforth expand upon how this may unfold. DEFINITIONS OF AUTONOMY The International Organization for Standardization (ISO 8373:2012) defines autonomy as “an ability to perform intended tasks based on c…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0000000000003262

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Panesar, S., Cagle, Y., Chander, D., Morey, J., Fernandez-Miranda, J., & Kliot, M.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Ames Research Center (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
  • Panesar, Sandip
  • Morey, Jose
  • Fernandez-Miranda, Juan
  • Kliot, Michel
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2019-08
Volume
270
Issue
2
Pages
223-226
ISSN
  • 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-1140
OpenAlex
W2929026486
Cited by
217
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 2
FWCI
6.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Soft Robotics and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence, autonomous robots, soft tissue surgery, autonomy levels, master-slave robot, surgical training, cost-effectiveness, future of surgery, haptic feedback
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Forecasting, Humans, Robotic Surgical Procedures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review