ReviewCureus2025
The Operative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Vascular Surgery: A Systematic Review of Literature.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Vascular Surgery: A Literature Review Focusing on Current Applications, Imaging Advances and Future Prospects.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to systematically review existing literature on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on operative workflow and safety in vascular surgery. This systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD420251004635). A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase (via Ovid), Scopus, Google Scholar, and Science Direct for studies published between January 2005 and February 2025. The search strategy used for PubMed, Embase (via Ovid), Scopus, and Google Scholar was: ("artificial intelligence" OR "AI" OR "machine learning" OR "deep learning" OR "neural network") AND ("vascular surgery" OR "endovascular" OR "EVAR" OR "TEVAR" OR "aneurysm repair" OR "carotid endarterectomy" OR "arteriovenous fistula" OR "bypass" OR "inferior vena cava") AND ("segmentation" OR "prediction" OR "risk model" OR "imaging" OR "perioperative" OR "intraoperative" OR "operative planning" OR "workflow" OR "patient safety). The strategy for Science Direct was: ("artificial intelligence" OR "machine learning" OR "deep learning") AND ("vascular surgery" OR "endovascular") AND ("operative role" OR "workflow" OR "patient safety"), as limited to eight words. The initial search identified 817 studies, and after screening, studies that did not meet the criteria were excluded, leaving eight relevant studies. Six were retrospective studies, one prospective study and one hybrid (retrospective-prospective cohort) study. The exclusion criteria included irrelevant titles, duplicate papers, abstracts, themes and non-English papers. The review demonstrated predominant utilisation of AI in the preoperative phase for risk prediction, decision support, anatomical assessment, and operative planning. Intraoperatively, AI applications encompassed real-time risk updates and intraoperative guidance based on preoperative computed tomography, while postoperative models enhanced surveillance following endovascular procedures. Across the reviewed studies, conventional methods were often outperformed by AI models in predictive accuracy, workflow efficiency and safety. AI application shows potential in improving operative workflow and safety in vascular surgery through enhanced decision support, risk prediction, and process automation. However the performance should be interpreted cautiously given current evidence limitations. Overall, the evidence remains limited by small, retrospective, and heterogeneous studies with potential bias, highlighting the need for large-scale prospective validation before routine clinical adoption.
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.