Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41322735›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

The Operative Role of Artificial Intelligence in Vascular Surgery: A Systematic Review of Literature.

Naomi Abara, Abdulazeez Mustapha, Revanth Kalichetty, Mohamed Elsaigh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Naomi AbaraVascular Surgery, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, GBR.
Abdulazeez MustaphaPaediatric Surgery, Birmingham Children's Hospital, Birmingham, GBR.
Revanth KalichettyUrology, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, GBR.
Mohamed ElsaighGeneral Surgery, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligencedeep learningmachine learningoperativevascular surgery

Identifiers

PMID41322735
PMCPMC12657128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.