ReviewCureus2025
Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in Minimally Invasive and Complex Surgical Procedures: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical liability in paediatric robotic surgery - a current concept and a literature review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-driven real-time assistance in minimally invasive surgery: a technology-oriented narrative review.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2026Review
- The Revolution in Surgery That Saves Millions of Lives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Mini-review on human-centered assurance in robot-assisted orthopedics and neurosurgery.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Review
- The Expanding Role of Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Cross-Specialty Chairside Perspective.Cureus · 2025Review
- Septic Shock in Hematological Malignancies: Role of Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Outcomes.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) are transforming surgery by improving patient outcomes, efficiency, and precision. The use of robotics in surgery tackles important issues, including surgical precision, minimally invasive procedures, and healthcare accessibility, as global healthcare systems embrace AI-driven technologies more and more. However, access gaps and ethical issues with automation continue to exist on a worldwide scale, calling for a fair discussion of these developments. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the most recent literature on the role of AI and robotics in minimally invasive and complex surgical procedures. The study was conducted as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We search for relevant studies across four different databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar). We also restricted our search to 2024 to capture the most recent advancement only. We found 393 relevant studies, of which only 12 were included in this study upon assessing them with inclusion and exclusion criteria. The review ensures scientific rigor and openness by evaluating surgical specializations, AI technologies, and outcomes such as accuracy, recovery, and complications. The results show significant progress in AI-powered surgical systems, enhancing judgment, lowering surgical errors, and enabling individualized treatment plans. AI-enhanced visualization, real-time data processing, and automated robotic equipment are notable innovations that boost patient safety and procedure efficiency. The importance of these developments is emphasized throughout the discussion, especially with regard to developing minimally invasive procedures and increasing surgical capabilities for complex surgeries. However, obstacles to broad adoption are cited, including expenses, moral dilemmas, and the requirement for stringent training procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.