Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Artificial intelligence and robotics: a combination that is changing the operating room

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the current narrative review was to summarize the available evidence in the literature on artificial intelligence (AI) methods that have been applied during robotic surgery.

Methods

A narrative review of the literature was performed on MEDLINE/Pubmed and Scopus database on the topics of artificial intelligence, autonomous surgery, machine learning, robotic surgery, and surgical navigation, focusing on articles published between January 2015 and June 2019. All available evidences were analyzed and summarized herein after an interactive peer-review process of the panel.

Literature review

The preliminary results of the implementation of AI in clinical setting are encouraging. By providing a readout of the full telemetry and a sophisticated viewing console, robot-assisted surgery can be used to study and refine the application of AI in surgical practice. Machine learning approaches strengthen the feedback regarding surgical skills acquisition, efficiency of the surgical process, surgical guidance and prediction of postoperative outcomes. Tension-sensors on the robotic arms and the integration of augmented reality methods can help enhance the surgical experience and monitor organ movements.

Conclusions

The use of AI in robotic surgery is expected to have a significant impact on future surgical training as well as enhance the surgical experience during a procedure. Both aim to realize precision surgery and thus to increase the quality of the surgical care. Implementation of AI in master–slave robotic surgery may allow for the careful, step-by-step consideration of autonomous robotic surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bachman AG, Parker AA, Shaw MD et al (2017) Minimally invasive versus open approach for cystectomy: trends in the utilization and demographic or clinical predictors using the National Cancer Database. Urology 103:99–105

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mazzone E, Mistretta FA, Knipper S et al (2019) Contemporary North-American assessment of robot-assisted surgery rates and total hospital charges for major surgical uro-oncological procedures. J Endourol 33(6):438–447

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Autorino R, Porpiglia F, Dasgupta P et al (2017) Precision surgery and genitourinary cancers. Eur J Surg Oncol 43(5):893–908

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Veronesi U, Stafyla V, Luini A, Veronesi P (2012) Breast cancer: from “maximum tolerable” to “minimum effective” treatment. Front Oncol 2:125

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gallagher AG (2018) Proficiency-based progression simulation training for more than an interesting educational experience. J Musculoskelet Surg Res 2:139–141

    Google Scholar 

  6. Satava RM, Stefanidis D, Levy JS et al (2019) Proving the effectiveness of the fundamentals of robotic surgery (FRS) skills curriculum: a single-blinded, multispecialty, multi-institutional randomized control trial. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang D, Khosla A, Gargeya R et al (2016) Deep learning for identifying metastatic breast cancer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05718

  8. Bergquist S, Brooks G, Keating N et al (2017) Classifying lung cancer severity with ensemble machine learning in health care claims data. Proc Mach Learn Res 68:25–38

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Hashimoto DA, Rosman G, Rus D, Meireles OR (2018) Artificial intelligence in surgery: promises and perils. Ann Surg 268(1):70–76

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Shouval R, Hadanny A, Shlomo N et al (2017) Machine learning for prediction of 30-day mortality after ST elevation myocardial infraction: an acute coronary syndrome Israeli survey data mining study. Int J Cardiol 246:7–13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kassahun Y, Yu B, Tibebu AT et al (2016) Surgical robotics beyond enhanced dexterity instrumentation: a survey of machine learning techniques and their role in intelligent and autonomous surgical actions. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11(4):553–568

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fard MJ, Ameri S, Darin Ellis R et al (2018) Automated robot-assisted surgical skill evaluation: predictive analytics approach. Int J Med Robot 14(1):e1850

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wang Z, Majewicz Fey A (2018) Deep learning with convolutional neural network for objective skill evaluation in robot-assisted surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 13(12):1959–1970

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ershad M, Rege R, Majewicz Fey A (2019) Automatic and near real-time stylistic behavior assessment in robotic surgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 14(4):635–643

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hung AJ, Chen J, Che Z et al (2018) Utilizing machine learning and automated performance metrics to evaluate robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performance and predict outcomes. J Endourol 32(5):438–444

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dai Y, Abiri A, Pensa J et al (2019) Biaxial sensing suture breakage warning system for robotic surgery. Biomed Microdevices 21(1):10

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhao B, Waterman RS, Urman RD, Gabriel RA (2019) A machine learning approach to predicting case duration for robot-assisted surgery. J Med Syst 43(2):32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hung AJ, Chen J, Ghodoussipour S et al (2019) A deep-learning model using automated performance metrics and clinical features to predict urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14735

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Collins JW, Dell'Oglio P, Hung AJ, Brook NR (2018) The importance of technical and non-technical skills in robotic surgery training. Eur Urol Focus 4(5):674–676

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lovegrove CE, Elhage O, Khan MS et al (2017) Training modalities in robot-assisted urologic surgery: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus 3(1):102–116

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mazzone E, Dell’Oglio P, Mottrie A (2019) Outcomes report of the first ERUS robotic urology curriculum-trained surgeon in Turkey: the importance of structured and validated training programs for global outcomes improvement. Turk J Urol 45(3):189–190

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Mottrie A, Novara G, van der Poel H et al (2016) The European Association of Urology robotic training curriculum: an update. Eur Urol Focus 2(1):105–108

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Larcher A, De Naeyer G, Turri F et al (2019) The ERUS curriculum for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: structure definition and pilot clinical validation. Eur Urol 75(6):1023–1031

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dell’Oglio P, Turri F, Larcher A et al (2019) Definition of a structured training curriculum for robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a Delphi-consensus study led by the ERUS Educational Board. Eur Urol Suppl 18(1):e1116–e1119

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chen J, Cheng N, Cacciamani G et al (2019) Objective assessment of robotic surgical technical skill: a systematic review. J Urol 201(3):461–469

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schout BMA, Hendrikx AJM, Scheele F, Bemelmans BLH, Scherpbier AJJA (2010) Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future. Surg Endosc 24(3):536–546

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Goldenberg MG, Lee JY, Kwong JCC, Grantcharov TP, Costello A (2018) Implementing assessments of robot-assisted technical skill in urological education: a systematic review and synthesis of the validity evidence. BJU Int 122(3):501–519

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ganni S, Botden SMBI, Chmarra M, Goossens RHM, Jakimowicz JJ (2018) A software-based tool for video motion tracking in the surgical skills assessment landscape. Surg Endosc 32(6):2994–2999

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hung AJ, Chen J, Gill IS (2018) Automated performance metrics and machine learning algorithms to measure surgeon performance and anticipate clinical outcomes in robotic surgery. JAMA Surg 153(8):770–771

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Delto JC, Wayne G, Yanes R, Nieder AM, Bhandari A (2015) Reducing robotic prostatectomy costs by minimizing instrumentation. J Endourol 29(5):556–560

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ramirez D, Ganesan V, Nelson RJ, Haber GP (2016) Reducing costs for robotic radical prostatectomy: three-instrument technique. Urology 95:213–215

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Basto M, Sathianathen N, Te Marvelde L et al (2016) Patterns-of-care and health economic analysis of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system. BJU Int 117(6):930–939

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pandit JJ, Carey A (2006) Estimating the duration of common elective operations: implications for operating list management. Anaesthesia 61:768–776

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Birkmeyer J, Finks J, O'Reilly A et al (2013) Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 369:1434–1442

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Beulens AJW, Brinkman WM, Van der Poel HG et al (2019) Linking surgical skills to postoperative outcomes: a Delphi study on the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-00916-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Goldenberg MG, Goldenberg L, Grantcharov TP (2017) Surgeon performance predicts early continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 31(9):858–863

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Atug F, Sanli O, Duru AD (2018) Editorial comment on: utilizing machine learning and automated performance metrics to evaluate robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performance and predict outcomes by Hung et al. J Endourol 32(5):445

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chen J, Remulla D, Nguyen JH et al (2019) Current status of artificial intelligence applications in urology and their potential to influence clinical practice. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14852

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Navaratnam A, Abdul-Muhsin H, Humphreys M (2018) Updates in urologic robot assisted surgery. F1000Res. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15480.1

  40. Kong SH, Haouchine N, Soares R et al (2017) Robust augmented reality registration method for localization of solid organs’ tumors using CT-derived virtual biomechanical model and fluorescent fiducials. Surg Endosc 31(7):2863–2871

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bertolo R, Hung A, Porpiglia F et al (2019) Systematic review of augmented reality in urological interventions: the evidences of an impact on surgical outcomes are yet to come. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02711-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. van Oosterom MN, van der Poel HG, Navab N, van de Velde CJ, van Leeuwen FW (2018) Computer-assisted surgery: virtual-and augmented-reality displays for navigation during urological interventions. Curr Opin Urol 28(2):205–213

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Pakhomov D, Premachandran V, Allan M, Azizian M, Navab N (2017) Deep residual learning for instrument segmentation in robotic surgery. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.08580

  44. Zhao Y, Guo S, Wang Y et al (2019) A CNN-based prototype method of unstructured surgical state perception and navigation for an endovascular surgery robot. Med Biol Eng Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-019-02002-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. O’Sullivan S, Nevejans N, Allen C et al (2019) Legal, regulatory, and ethical frameworks for development of standards in artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous robotic surgery. Int J Med Robot 15(1):e1968

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Fichera L, Dillon NP, Zhang D et al (2017) Through the eustachian tube and beyond: new miniature robotic endoscope to see into the middle ear. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 2(3):1488–1494

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Yang S, MacLachlan RA, Martel JN, Lobes LA Jr, Riviere CN (2016) Comparative evaluation of handheld robot-aided intraocular laser surgery. IEEE Trans Robot 32(1):246–251

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Fornalik H, Fornalik N, Kincy T (2015) Advanced robotics: removal of a 25 cm pelvic mass. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(6S):S154

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Tsai TY, Dimitriou D, Li JS, Kwon YM (2016) Does haptic robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty better restore native acetabular and femoral anatomy? Int J Med Robot 12(2):288–295

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. O’Sullivan S, Leonard S, Holzinger A et al (2019) Anatomy 101 for AI-driven robotics: explanatory, ethical and legal frameworks for development of cadaveric *skills training standards in autonomous robotic surgery/autopsy. Int J Med e2020

  51. Chen CH, Suehn T, Illanes A et al (2018) Proximally placed signal acquision sensoric for robotic tissue tool interactions. Curr Dir Biomed Eng 4(1):67–70

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted with the support of the European Urological Scholarship Programme and an NWO TTW VICI grant (TTW BTG 16141).

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium

    Iulia Andras, Elio Mazzone, Fijs W. B. van Leeuwen, Geert De Naeyer, Sergi Beato, Frederiek D’Hondt, Peter Schatteman, Paolo Dell’Oglio & Alexandre Mottrie

  2. Department of Urology, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Iulia Andras & Nicolae Crisan

  3. Department of Urology, Onze Lieve Vrouw Hospital, Aalst, Belgium

    Elio Mazzone, Geert De Naeyer, Frederiek D’Hondt, Peter Schatteman, Paolo Dell’Oglio & Alexandre Mottrie

  4. Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy

    Elio Mazzone

  5. Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Fijs W. B. van Leeuwen, Matthias N. van Oosterom, Tessa Buckle & Paolo Dell’Oglio

  6. Department of Urology, Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Fijs W. B. van Leeuwen, Matthias N. van Oosterom, Pim J. van Leeuwen, Henk van Der Poel & Paolo Dell’Oglio

  7. Department of Pathology, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Shane O’Sullivan

  8. Department of Urology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Alexander Beulens

  9. Netherlands Institute for Health Services (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Alexander Beulens

Authors
  1. Iulia Andras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elio Mazzone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fijs W. B. van Leeuwen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Geert De Naeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthias N. van Oosterom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sergi Beato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tessa Buckle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Shane O’Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Pim J. van Leeuwen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Alexander Beulens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Nicolae Crisan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Frederiek D’Hondt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Peter Schatteman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Henk van Der Poel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Paolo Dell’Oglio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Alexandre Mottrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Protocol/project development: IA, EM, PDO, and AM. Data collection or management: IA, EM, and PDO. Data analysis: IA, EM, and PDO. Manuscript writing: IA, EM, and PDO. Manuscript editing: FWBL, GN, MNO, SB, TB, SOS, PJL, AB, NC, FDH, PS, HDP, and AM.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Dell’Oglio.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andras, I., Mazzone, E., van Leeuwen, F.W.B. et al. Artificial intelligence and robotics: a combination that is changing the operating room. World J Urol 38, 2359–2366 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-03037-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-03037-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation