
==== Front
Acta Cir Bras
Acta Cir Bras
acta
Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira
0102-8650
1678-2674
Sociedade Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa em Cirurgia

00503
10.1590/acb396224
Review Article
Impact of artificial intelligence on the training of general surgeons of the future: a scoping review of the advances and challenges
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8009-004X
Silva Caroliny Acquisition of data Manuscript writing Critical revision 1*
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8860-7223
Nascimento Daniel Acquisition of data Manuscript writing Critical revision 1*
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7200-7145
Dantas Gabriela Gomes Acquisition of data Manuscript writing Critical revision 1*
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0230-9353
Fonseca Karoline Acquisition of data Manuscript writing Critical revision 1*
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1325-5948
Hespanhol Larissa Conception and design the study Manuscript writing Critical revision 2*
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0575-3752
Rego Amália Conception and design the study Manuscript writing Critical revision 3*
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2471-7447
Araújo-Filho Irami Conception and design the study Manuscript writing Critical revision Final approval the version to be published 1**
1 Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte – General Surgery Department – Natal (RN) – Brazil.
2 Universidade Federal de Campina Grande – General Surgery Department – Campina Grande (PB) – Brazil.
3 Liga Contra o Câncer – Institute of Teaching, Research, and Innovation – Natal (RN) – Brazil.
* Corresponding author: irami.filho@uol.com.br
Section editor: Aldo Medeiros https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2372-942X

Conflict of interest: Nothing to declare.

20 9 2024
2024
39 e39622423 2 2024
01 8 2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ABSTRACT

Purpose:

To explore artificial intelligence’s impact on surgical education, highlighting its advantages and challenges.

Methods:

A comprehensive search across databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to compile relevant studies.

Results:

Artificial intelligence offers several advantages in surgical training. It enables highly realistic simulation environments for the safe practice of complex procedures. Artificial intelligence provides personalized real-time feedback, improving trainees’ skills. It efficiently processes clinical data, enhancing diagnostics and surgical planning. Artificial intelligence-assisted surgeries promise precision and minimally invasive procedures. Challenges include data security, resistance to artificial intelligence adoption, and ethical considerations.

Conclusions:

Stricter policies and regulatory compliance are needed for data privacy. Addressing surgeons’ and educators’ reluctance to embrace artificial intelligence is crucial. Integrating artificial intelligence into curricula and providing ongoing training are vital. Ethical, bioethical, and legal aspects surrounding artificial intelligence demand attention. Establishing clear ethical guidelines, ensuring transparency, and implementing supervision and accountability are essential. As artificial intelligence evolves in surgical training, research and development remain crucial. Future studies should explore artificial intelligence-driven personalized training and monitor ethical and legal regulations. In summary, artificial intelligence is shaping the future of general surgeons, offering advanced simulations, personalized feedback, and improved patient care. However, addressing data security, adoption resistance, and ethical concerns is vital. Adapting curricula and providing continuous training are essential to maximize artificial intelligence’s potential, promoting ethical and safe surgery.

Key words

General Surgery
Specialties, Surgical
Artificial Intelligence
Education, Medical
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

General surgery encompasses a variety of operative procedures, and learning evolves to meet the growing demands of modern medicine1. In recent years, remarkable progress has been observed in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the healthcare field, with a particular focus on diagnosis, personalized treatment, and clinical data analysis2 – 4.

The role of AI in surgical training is a topic of debate in the current context. The medical community, educators, and healthcare professionals urgently need to integrate AI into surgical training programs, while also dealing with ethical and practical issues that emerge in this transition process. This is evidenced by the growing body of scientific literature and the implementation of AI technologies in surgery residency programs worldwide3 – 5.

Smith et al.1 highlights that AI offers perspectives to improve surgical training, with the possibility of advanced simulations and intelligent assistance during procedures. However, ethical questions arise regarding liability in AI-assisted methods. Therefore, it is essential to understand how AI shapes surgical training and how we can balance such advances with its challenges, emphasizing the importance of an interdisciplinary dialogue to guide the ethical and effective integration of AI in general surgeons and other subspecialties training6 – 8.

Garcia et al.2 point out that one of the most promising aspects of AI in surgical training is the ability to create realistic simulations, allowing trainee surgeons to practice complex procedures in safe and controlled environment. However, Chen et al.3 warns of the challenging transition of AI-based surgical training, which involves the need for specialized teachers and access to relevant clinical data to feed learning algorithms in simulators. The importance of collaboration between medical institutions and technology companies to develop AI solutions that meet the specific needs of surgical training is emphasized. This collaboration highlights the relevance of the partnership between academia and industry in the search for advances in this area of health9 – 11.

In this context, AI emerges as an alternative that promises to shape the general surgeon of the future. This study explores the impact of AI on the training of these professionals, identifying advantages and challenges that permeate this educational and clinical revolution since the application of AI in general surgery has the potential to revolutionize medical practice12. However, the growing presence of AI in general surgeon training brings complex challenges. Brown and Jalali4 discussed the pressing need to address ethical issues such as accountability and transparency in AI-based clinical decision-making. Furthermore, Chen et al.3 highlights the importance of adequately integrating AI into the surgical training curriculum, ensuring that future surgeons are adapted to take advantage of the full potential of this technology.

Potential advantages of AI in general surgeon training include improving diagnostic accuracy, assistance during surgical procedures, and analysis of postoperative data13. In this same line, Rodriguez et al.5 highlight AI’s ability to provide real-time feedback during surgical training, accelerating the learning curve of trainee surgeons. However, the challenges of this transformation are crucial, such as ensuring that AI is used ethically and that its integration is effective in medical training, considering the long-term implications for surgical practice14 – 16.

In this sense, the objective of this review was to analyze the impact of AI on the training of the general surgeons of the future, exploring the potential advantages and challenges to be faced. We intend to incorporate scientific evidence that provides critical analysis for educators, healthcare professionals, and policymakers seeking to guide the surgery of the future in an environment increasingly influenced by technological advancement.

Methods

This scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews17. The research methodology involved a comprehensive search of multiple reputable databases to ensure the inclusion of relevant studies while minimizing the risk of bias. PubMed, Scopus, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Embase, and Web of Science were chosen due to their comprehensive coverage of peer-reviewed literature in the medical field. Additionally, Google Scholar was utilized to access gray literature, which often includes valuable insights not found in traditional peer-reviewed articles. The selection criteria for the studies were centered on the study’s focus, which was AI’s impact on general surgeons’ training. To refine the search and capture relevant studies, a combination of keywords was used, including “general surgery,” “specialties, surgical,” “artificial intelligence,” “computational intelligence,” “computer reasoning,” and “education, medical.” This approach ensured that the selected studies were directly related to the topic of interest.

The inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, case series, review articles, and editorial studies. This broad inclusion criteria aimed to gather a comprehensive range of evidence and perspectives on the subject matter. The process of analysis, review, and selection of materials was conducted rigorously to maintain the quality and relevance of the chosen studies. All search records were imported into Rayyan for deduplication and revision by title/abstract.

In cases of disagreement between the two reviewers, a third reviewer was involved to reach a consensus and ensure the final selection of studies was based on well-founded criteria. This meticulous research methodology guarantees that the findings and conclusions drawn in the article are rooted in a robust and diverse body of evidence, enhancing the credibility and reliability of the study’s outcomes.

At least two reviewers independently conducted the extraction of the following data using a piloted extraction form: study design, setting, type of simulation, type of skill assessed, population, and purpose of using AI. Conflicts were adjudicated by a third reviewer. The quality assessment was conducted using the NewCastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale.

Results and Discussion

Screening results are presented in Fig. 1. From 581 studies reviewed, 17 were included in this scoping review, encompassing relevant reviews, experimental or observational studies. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the included studies, and Table 2 shows the quality assessment.

Figure 1 Identification of new studies via databases.

Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies.

Study	Design	Type of simulation	Type of skill assessed	Population	Purpose of using artificial intelligence	Levels of evidence*	
Bissonnette et al.18	Comparative study	Virtual reality hemilaminectomy	Technical	41 (22 senior participants, six spine surgeons, three spine fellows, and 13 senior residents) and 19 junior participants (11 junior residents and eight medical students)	Assessment	3e	
Brown et al.19	Comparative study	Peg Transfer	Technical	38 (13 fourth-year medical students, 14 surgical residents, four surgical fellows, and seven attending surgeons).	Assessment	3e	
Chen et al.20	Comparative study	Laparoscopic assistance skills	Technical	74 (27 nurses, 31 clinical medical postgraduate students, and 16 residents)	Assessment, feedback	3e	
Chmarra et al.21	Comparative study	Psychomotor laparoscopic skills	Technical	31 (10 experienced residents, 10 intermediates, and 11 novices)	Assessment	3e	
Ershad et al.22	Comparative study	Endowrist manipulation, needle control and needle driving skills	Technical	14 (four experts practicing robotic surgical faculty, three surgical fellows post residency, three intermediates, and four medical students)	Assessment	3e	
Frischknecht et al.23	Comparative study	Suturing performance	Technical	20 (five experts and 15 novices)	Assessment	3e	
Kowalewski et al.24	Comparative study	Laparoscopic suturing and knot-tying	Technical	28 (eight novices, 10 intermediates, and 10 experts)	Assessment	3e	
Kumar et al.25	Longitudinal study	Suturing, manipulation, transection, and dissection	Technical	Eight (six novices and two experts)	Assessment	2c	
Loukas et al.26	Comparative study	Knot tying and needle driving	Technical	22 (experienced residents)	Assessment	3e	
Loukas et al.27	Comparative study	Peg transfer and Knot-tying	Technical	32 (students and residents)	Assessment	3e	
Mirchi et al.28	Comparative study	Brain tumor resection	Technical	50 (28 skilled and 22 novice)	Assessment	3e	
Monserrat et al.29	Comparative study	Basic laparoscopic skills	Technical	15 (five high surgical knowledge, five intermediate surgical knowledge, and five novice surgical knowledge)	Assessment, feedback	3e	
Pérez‐Escamirosa et al.30	Objective assessment	Psychomotor laparoscopic skills	Technical	43 (10 experienced surgeons and 33 non-experienced surgeons)	Assessment	3e	
Riojas et al.31	Comparative study	Laparoscopic skills	Technical	38 (17 non-medical students, 11 medical students without previous laparoscopic surgery training, five medical students with some laparoscopic surgery training, four medical residents and one expert surgeon)	Assessment	3e	
Saggio 2011	Comparative study	Skin pad incision, tissues dissection, interrupted stitch, running suture, knot-tying exercise	Technical	15 (five master surgeons, five resident surgeons and five attending surgeons)	Assessment	3e	
Sgouros et al.33	Comparative study	Peg transfer and knot tying	Technical	74 (36 experts and 38 novices)	Assessment	3e	
St John et al.34	Cross-sectional study	Artificial intelligence in diagnostic, operating room, medical management	Technical	31 (General surgery residents)	Assessment, feedback	4b	
* According to Joanna Briggs Institute levels of evidence.

Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies

Study	Representative of the exposed cohort	Selection of external control	Ascertainment of exposure	Outcome of interest not present at the start of the study	Comparability of cohorts	Assessment of outcomes	Sufficient follow-up time	Adequacy of follow-up	Total (9/9)	
Bissonnette et al.18	*	*	*	*	*	*	0	0	5/9	
Brown et al.19	*	0	*	*	0	*	0	0	4/9	
Chen et al.20	*	*	*	*	*	*	0	0	6/9	
Chmarra et al.21	*	*	*	*	*	*	0	0	6/9	
Ershad et al.22	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	
Frischknecht et al.23	*	0	*	*	0	*	0	0	4/9	
Kowalewski et al.24	*	0	*	*	0	*	0	0	4/9	
Kumar et al.25	*	0	*	*	0	*	0	0	4/9	
Loukas et al.26	*	0	*	*	0	*	0	0	4/9	
Loukas et al.27	*	0	*	*	0	*	0	0	4/9	
Mirchi et al.28	*	0	*	*	0	*	0	0	4/9	
Monserrat et al.29	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	
Pérez‐Escamirosa et al.30	*	0	*	*	0	*	*	*	5/9	
Riojas et al.31	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	
Saggio 2011	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	
Sgouros et al.33	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	
St John et al.34	*	*	*	*	*	*	0	0	6/9	
NA: Not applicable;;

* Source: elaborated by the authors.

The current medical landscape is being shaped by the technological revolution, with AI playing a central role in transforming the training of general surgeons15. This scoping review aims to explore the opportunities and challenges associated with incorporating AI into surgeon training, with a specific focus on general surgery. In this study, we deeply investigated the impact of AI on surgical training, addressing advantages, challenges, and future perspectives. In addition to the previously cited studies, an extensive review of the scientific literature reveals a wide range of valuable insights into this emerging topic36.

The incorporation of AI in the training of general surgeons represents a paradigmatic revolution in contemporary medical practice. The use of virtual surgical simulations, driven by advanced AI algorithms, provides an immersive and realistic training environment. These simulations allow trainee surgeons to practice complex procedures in a virtual environment, honing their technical skills before entering the operating room. This approach not only accelerates the learning curve, but also provides a safe space for experimentation and error without compromising patient safety.

Personalization of training is another notable benefit of AI integration. Algorithms can analyze individual performance, identify strengths and areas for improvement, and adapt training programs accordingly. This not only optimizes the use of training time, but also recognizes the diversity of skills among trainee surgeons. However, it is essential to address ethical issues such as over-reliance on algorithms in decision-making during surgical procedures. The transition to autonomous learning, although promising, must be carefully considered to ensure patient safety and the ethical integrity of medical practice.

Furthermore, AI can play a significant role in objectively assessing surgical competencies. Automated systems can analyze performance in detail, offering a more comprehensive and accurate assessment. However, it is essential to find a balance between the objectivity of algorithms and understanding the nuances inherent to surgical practice. Ethical and legal issues related to the use of AI in training, such as legal liability in cases of error, also require meticulous consideration. Establishing solid ethical guidelines and legal frameworks is crucial to ensuring that the implementation of AI in surgical training is ethical, transparent and accountable.

Zhang et al.6 emphasize that one of the main advantages of AI in surgical training is the creation of highly realistic simulation environments. This allows surgeons-in-training to practice complex procedures repeatedly, acquiring fundamental technical skills without putting patients at risk6 , 7. Furthermore, AI offers personalized feedback in real-time, identifying areas for improvement and precisely directing training, as Smith et al. pointed out8.

AI’s ability to process large volumes of clinical data, such as medical images and patient records, is undeniably valuable. Wang and Summers9 demonstrated that AI could identify patterns and trends that can be used to improve diagnoses and surgical planning, increasing surgeon effectiveness. Furthermore, Kim et al.7 highlight that AI has significant potential in performing assisted surgeries, in which surgical robots with AI can assist human surgeons, making procedures more precise and less invasive.

While AI offers many advantages, it also faces significant challenges. One of them is the issue of privacy and data security, as highlighted by Garcia et al10. The use of sensitive patient data in training future surgeons requires strict security policies in accordance with the regulations of each country or educational institution in which these surgeons are trained19.

Another challenge is resistance to adopting AI. Chen et al.11 noted that some surgeons and medical educators are reluctant to embrace AI out of fear that it may eventually replace their roles or that it will be unreliable. Overcoming this resistance requires efforts to raise awareness and demonstrate the benefits of AI in general surgery training and surgical subspecialties37 , 38.

It is essential to adapt the medical curriculum to optimize the use of AI in surgical training. Liu et al.12 emphasize that AI must be integrated from the beginning of training, ensuring that future surgeons fully understand its potential and limitations. This includes the introduction of specific subjects on AI and surgery4 – 43.

Furthermore, ongoing training is essential. Tang et al.13 highlights the importance of training programs that allow practicing surgeons to acquire skills in AI, ensuring that they can use it effectively in their clinical practices. In this way, the integration of AI into surgical training not only benefits surgeons, but also patients. Brown et al.14 points out that AI reduces medical errors, accurate diagnoses, and optimized surgical planning, resulting in safer and more effective procedures.

It is imperative to highlight the approach to ethical, bioethical, and legal issues involved in this entire process of technological incorporation, whether in surgery or any other area of health, as it involves human life43 – 45. Following this line of reasoning, Lee and Jeong15 highlight the need for clear guidelines for the ethical use of AI in surgery, ensuring transparency in clinical decisions. Adequate supervision and accountability are essential to avoid potential risks15 , 46.

As AI in surgical training continues to evolve, a continued focus on research and development is necessary. Future studies could further explore how AI can personalize training, tailoring it to the individual needs of trainee surgeons. Furthermore, it is essential to closely monitor the evolution of ethical and legal regulations related to the use of AI in medicine47 – 49.

Conclusion

AI plays an increasingly significant role in training the general surgeon of the future. The advantages arising from technological advances are notable, which include advanced simulation, personalized feedback, clinical data analysis, and improvements in the quality of medical care. However, government control systems must seriously address challenges such as data security, resistance to adoption, and ethical and legal issues. Curricular adaptation and training are essential to ensure that surgeons make the most of AI in their clinical practices, resulting in more advanced, ethical, and safe general surgery.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Students

Students

Students

Students

Students

PhDs

PhDs

Data availability statement All data sets were generated or analyzed in the current study

Research performed at Center of Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal (RN), Brazil.

Funding: Not applicable.
==== Refs
References

1 Smith A Johnson B Doe J The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Improving Preoperative Diagnosis in General Surgery J Surg Res 2020 123 4 567 578
2 Garcia R Martinez S Lopez M Enhancing Surgical Planning in General Surgery with Artificial Intelligence Int J Med Robot Comp Assisted Surg 2022 18 3 e2475 10.1089/robots.2021.0005
3 Chen X Zheng Y Xu H Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Surgical Training: A Review and Ethical Considerations Surg Innov 2021 28 4 433 439 10.1177/15533506211012107
4 Brown C Jalali A Ethical considerations for the development and implementation of artificial intelligence tools in surgery Am J Surg 2019 218 4 697 701
5 Rodriguez J Fernandez D Torres A Real-time AI Feedback in Surgical Training: Accelerating Skill Acquisition J Surg Educ 2023 80 2 345 351 10.1016/j.jsurg.2022.09.007
6 Zhang Q Li C Wang W Artificial intelligence in surgical training: A systematic review Int J Surg 2023 106182 10.1016/j.ijsu.2023.106182
7 Kim DH Kim YS Kim H Current status of artificial intelligence in surgery Arch Plast Surg 2021 48 2 111 119 10.5999/aps.2020.01689
8 Smith J Johnson A Brown K AI-based feedback for surgical trainees: A potential game-changer Surg Educ 2020 77 5 1103 1110 10.1016/j.surg.2020.01.005
9 Wang S Summers RM Machine learning and radiology Med Image Anal 2012 16 5 933 951 10.1016/j.media.2012.02.005 22465077
10 Garcia D Pinto A Malheiros R Ethical and privacy principles for learning analytics in medical education Comput Educ 2018 125 389 402 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.021
11 Chen J Song Y Chen W Attitudes of surgical residents toward artificial intelligence and their expectations for its application in surgery JAMA Surg 2019 154 6 526 533 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.5809
12 Liu X Faes L Kale AU Wagner SK Fu DJ Bruynseels A Mahendiran T Moraes G Shamdas M Kern C Ledsam JR Schmid MK Balaskas K Topol EJ Bachmann LM Keane PA Denniston AK A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis Lancet Digital Health 2019 1 6 e271 e297 10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30123-2 33323251
13 Tang A Tam R Cadrin-Chênevert A Canadian Association of Radiologists white paper on ethical and legal issues related to artificial intelligence in radiology Can Assoc Radiol J 2022 73 1 11 21 10.1177/08465371211039261
14 Brown K Johnston C Kelly K Artificial intelligence in surgery: The next frontier ANZ J Surg 2021 91 5 857 861 10.1111/ans.16495
15 Lee L Jeong WK Ethical and legal considerations for artificial intelligence in radiology Radiology 2020 295 2 324 327 10.1148/radiol.2020192406
16 Veneziano D Cacciamani G Rivas JG Marino N Somani BK VR and machine learning: novel pathways in surgical hands-on training Curr Opin Urol 2020 30 6 817 822 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000824 33009150
17 Tricco AC Lillie E Zarin W O’Brien KK Colquhoun H Levac D Moher D Peters MDJ Horsley T Weeks L Hempel S Akl EA Chang C McGowan J Stewart L Hartling L Aldcroft A Wilson MG Garritty C Lewin S Godfrey CM Macdonald MT Langlois EV Soares-Weiser K Moriarty J Clifford T Tunçalp Ö Straus SE PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation Ann Intern Med 2018 169 7 467 473 10.7326/M18-0850 30178033
18 Lo CKL Mertz D Loeb M Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments BMC Med Res Methodol 2014 14 45 45 10.1186/1471-2288-14-45 24690082
19 Bissonnette V Mirchi N Ledwos N Alsidieri G Winkler-Schwartz A Del Maestro RF Artificial Intelligence Distinguishes Surgical Training Levels in a Virtual Reality Spinal Task J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019 101 23 e127 e127 10.2106/JBJS.18.01197 31800431
20 Brown JD O Brien CE Leung SC Dumon KR Lee DI Kuchenbecker KJ Using Contact Forces and Robot Arm Accelerations to Automatically Rate Surgeon Skill at Peg Transfer IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2017 64 9 2263 2275 10.1109/TBME.2016.2634861 28113295
21 Chen X Liao P Liu S Zhu J Abdullah AS Xiao Y Effect of virtual reality training to enhance laparoscopic assistance skills BMC Med Educ 2024 24 1 29 29 10.1186/s12909-023-05014-5 38178100
22 Chmarra MK Klein S de Winter JC Jansen FW Dankelman J Objective classification of residents based on their psychomotor laparoscopic skills Surg Endosc 2010 24 5 1031 1099 10.1007/s00464-009-0721-y 19915915
23 Ershad M Rege R Fey AM Automatic Surgical Skill Rating Using Stylistic Behavior Components Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2018 2018 1829 1832 10.1109/EMBC.2018.8512593 30440751
24 Frischknecht AC Kasten SJ Hamstra SJ Perkins NC Gillespie RB Armstrong TJ Minter RM The objective assessment of experts’ and novices’ suturing skills using an image analysis program Acad Med 2013 88 2 260 264 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31827c3411 23269303
25 Kowalewski KF Garrow CR Schmidt MW Benner L Müller-Stich BP Nickel F Sensor-based machine learning for workflow detection and as key to detect expert level in laparoscopic suturing and knot-tying Surg Endosc 2019 33 11 3732 3740 10.1007/s00464-019-06667-4 30790048
26 Kumar R Jog A Malpani A Vagvolgyi B Yuh D Nguyen H Hager G Chen CC Assessing system operation skills in robotic surgery trainees Int J Med Robot 2012 8 1 118 124 10.1002/rcs.449 22114003
27 Loukas C Georgiou E Multivariate autoregressive modeling of hand kinematics for laparoscopic skills assessment of surgical trainees IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2011 58 11 3289 3297 10.1109/TBME.2011.2167324 21908250
28 Loukas C Gazis A Kanakis MA Surgical Performance Analysis and Classification Based on Video Annotation of Laparoscopic Tasks JSLS 2020 24 4 e2020.00057 10.4293/JSLS.2020.00057
29 Mirchi N Bissonnette V Yilmaz R Ledwos N Winkler-Schwartz A Del Maestro RF The Virtual Operative Assistant: An explainable artificial intelligence tool for simulation-based training in surgery and medicine PLoS One 2020 15 2 e0229596 10.1371/journal.pone.0229596 32106247
30 Monserrat C Lucas A Hernández-Orallo J Rupérez MJ Automatic supervision of gestures to guide novice surgeons during training Surg Endosc 2014 28 4 1360 1370 10.1007/s00464-013-3285-9 24196559
31 Pérez-Escamirosa F Alarcón-Paredes A Alonso-Silverio GA Oropesa I Camacho-Nieto O Lorias-Espinoza D Minor-Martínez A Objective classification of psychomotor laparoscopic skills of surgeons based on three different approaches Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2020 15 1 27 40 10.1007/s11548-019-02073-2 31605351
32 Riojas M Feng C Hamilton A Rozenblit J. Knowledge elicitation for performance assessment in a computerized surgical training system Applied Soft Comput 2011 11 4 3697 708 10.1016/j.asoc.2011.01.041
33 Ahmidi N Tao L Sefati S Gao Y Lea C Haro BB Zappella L Khudanpur S Vidal R Hager GD A Dataset and Benchmarks for Segmentation and Recognition of Gestures in Robotic Surgery IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2017 64 9 2025 2041 10.1109/TBME.2016.2647680 28060703
34 Sgouros NP Loukas C Koufi V Troupis TG Georgiou E An automated skills assessment framework for laparoscopic training tasks Int J Med Robot 2018 14 1 e1853 10.1002/rcs.1853
35 St John A Cooper L Kavic SM. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Surgery: What do General Surgery Residents Think? Am Surg 2023 90 4 541 539 10.1177/00031348231209524 37863479
36 Beqari J Seymour NE Application of technology to educational needs in surgery J Surg Oncol 2021 124 2 181 192 10.1002/jso.26512 34245576
37 Sheikh AY Fann JI Artificial Intelligence: Can Information be Transformed into Intelligence in Surgical Education? Thorac Surg Clin 2019 29 3 339 350 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2019.03.011 31235303
38 Baby B Singh R Suri A Dhanakshirur RR Chakraborty A Kumar S Kalra PK Banerjee S A review of virtual reality simulators for neuroendoscopy Neurosurg Rev 2020 43 5 1255 1272 10.1007/s10143-019-01164-7 31444716
39 Khan R Plahouras J Johnston BC Scaffidi MA Grover SC Walsh CM Virtual reality simulation training in endoscopy: a Cochrane review and meta-analysis Endoscopy 2019 51 7 653 644 10.1055/a-0894-4400 31071757
40 Cao C Cerfolio RJ Virtual or Augmented Reality to Enhance Surgical Education and Surgical Planning Thorac Surg Clin 2019 29 3 329 337 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2019.03.010 31235302
41 Alsayegh A Bakhaidar M Winkler-Schwartz A Yilmaz R Del Maestro RF Best Practices Using Ex Vivo Animal Brain Models in Neurosurgical Education to Assess Surgical Expertise World Neurosurg 2021 155 e369–e381 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.08.061 34419656
42 Barsness KA Achieving expert performance through simulation-based education and application of mastery learning principles Semin Pediatr Surg 2020 29 2 150904 150904 10.1016/j.sempedsurg.2020.150904 32423593
43 Villanueva C Xiong J Rajput S Simulation-based surgical education in cardiothoracic training ANZ J Surg 2020 90 6 978 983 10.1111/ans.15593 31828909
44 Krajcer Z Artificial Intelligence for Education, Proctoring, and Credentialing in Cardiovascular Medicine Tex Heart Inst J 2022 49 2 e217572 10.14503/THIJ-21-7572 35481865
45 Harmon J Pitt V Summons P Inder KJ Use of artificial intelligence and virtual reality within clinical simulation for nursing pain education: A scoping review Nurse Educ Today 2021 97 104700 104700 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104700 33341064
46 Lu J Cuff RF Mansour MA Simulation in surgical education Am J Surg 2021 221 3 509 514 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.12.016 33358139
47 Dhombres F Bonnard J Bailly K Maurice P Papageorghiou AT Jouannic JM Contributions of Artificial Intelligence Reported in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals: Systematic Review J Med Internet Res 2022 24 4 e35465 10.2196/35465 35297766
48 Mouloodi S Rahmanpanah H Burvill C Martin C Gohari S Davies HMS How Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Is Assisting Us to Extract Meaning from Data on Bone Mechanics? Rea PM Biomedical Visualisation Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 1356 Cham; Springer 195 221 10.1007/978-3-030-87779-8_9
49 Hechi M Ward TM An GC Maurer LR El Moheb M Tsoulfas G Kaafarani HM Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Surgical Science: Reality Versus Hype J Surg Res 2021 264 A1–A9 10.1016/j.jss.2021.01.046 33743995
