Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1814772
Systematic Review of Digital Innovations in Surgery: Machine Learning Applications and Implementation Guidelines
Authors
Funding None.

Abstract
Digital technologies, particularly machine learning (ML), are increasingly integrated into contemporary surgical practice, though implementation barriers remain. This systematic review examined the current evidence on digital innovations in surgery, focusing on ML applications, implementation challenges, and evidence-based implementation strategies. A comprehensive search of seven electronic databases identified 87 studies published between January 2018 and December 2024, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework. Evidence synthesis encompassed six domains: artificial intelligence and ML applications, extended reality (XR) technologies, clinician-led innovation, sustainable surgical practices, specialized training models, and nontechnical skills development. ML models demonstrated improved performance in preoperative risk stratification compared with conventional statistical approaches. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed ML models, including deep neural networks (area under the curve [AUC] ≈ 0.82–0.96), random forests (AUC ≈ 0.86–0.93), and support vector machines (AUC ≈ 0.86), outperformed traditional logistic regression (AUC ≈ 0.68–0.74) for predicting postoperative complications. Computer vision algorithms improved procedural precision, while XR technologies (virtual reality/augmented reality) enhanced surgical training, showing skill acquisition comparable or superior to traditional methods. However, substantial implementation barriers were identified, including algorithmic bias, insufficient training in digital competencies, regulatory constraints, and documented concerns regarding bias in nonrandomized studies of XR technologies. Environmental impact assessments revealed that telemedicine applications reduced carbon emissions, whereas robotic surgical systems demonstrated higher resource consumption. The successful integration of digital innovations requires a phased implementation approach, multidisciplinary collaboration, comprehensive competency development, and systematic evaluation of both clinical and operational outcomes. This review provides recommendations for translating digital innovations, addressing technical, regulatory, and human factors.
Keywords
artificial intelligence - machine learning - extended reality - clinician-led innovation - implementation guidelines - surgical innovationPublication History
Article published online:
13 March 2026
© 2026. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Morris MX, Fiocco D, Caneva T, Yiapanis P, Orgill DP. Current and future applications of artificial intelligence in surgery: implications for clinical practice and research. Front Surg 2024; 11: 1393898
- 2 Hashimoto DA, Rosman G, Rus D, Meireles OR. Artificial intelligence in surgery: promises and perils. Ann Surg 2018; 268 (01) 70-76
- 3 Maier-Hein L, Eisenmann M, Sarikaya D. et al. Surgical data science - from concepts toward clinical translation. Med Image Anal 2022; 76: 102306
- 4 Mao RQ, Lan L, Kay J. et al. Immersive virtual reality for surgical training: a systematic review. J Surg Res 2021; 268: 40-58
- 5 Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med 2019; 25 (01) 44-56
- 6 Hung AJ, Chen J, Gill IS. Automated performance metrics and machine learning algorithms to measure surgeon performance and anticipate clinical outcomes in robotic surgery. JAMA Surg 2018; 153 (08) 770-771
- 7 Nagendran M, Chen Y, Lovejoy CA. et al. Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies. BMJ 2020; 368: m689
- 8 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372 (71) n71
- 9 Flemyng E, Moore TH, Boutron I. et al. Using Risk of Bias 2 to assess results from randomised controlled trials: guidance from Cochrane. BMJ Evid Based Med 2023; 28 (04) 260-266
- 10 Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898
- 11 Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008
- 12 Bunogerane GJ, Taylor K, Lin Y, Costas-Chavarri A. Using touch surgery to improve surgical education in low- and middle-income settings: a randomized control trial. J Surg Educ 2018; 75 (01) 231-237
- 13 Meling TR, Meling TR. The impact of surgical simulation on patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev 2021; 44 (02) 843-854
- 14 Aguilar-Salinas P, Gutierrez-Aguirre SF, Avila MJ, Nakaji P. Current status of augmented reality in cerebrovascular surgery: a systematic review. Neurosurg Rev 2022; 45 (03) 1951-1964
- 15 Huber T, Paschold M, Hansen C, Wunderling T, Lang H, Kneist W. New dimensions in surgical training: immersive virtual reality laparoscopic simulation exhilarates surgical staff. Surg Endosc 2017; 31 (11) 4472-4477
- 16 Co M, Chiu S, Billy Cheung HH. Extended reality in surgical education: a systematic review. Surgery 2023; 174 (05) 1175-1183
- 17 Toni E, Toni E, Fereidooni M, Ayatollahi H. Acceptance and use of extended reality in surgical training: an umbrella review. Syst Rev 2024; 13 (01) 299
- 18 Parsons D, MacCallum K. Current perspectives on augmented reality in medical education: applications, affordances and limitations. Adv Med Educ Pract 2021; 12: 77-91
- 19 Shoham MA, Baker NM, Peterson ME, Fox P. The environmental impact of surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 2022; 172 (03) 897-905
- 20 Dang A, Arora D, Rane P. Role of digital therapeutics and the changing future of healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care 2020; 9 (05) 2207-2213
- 21 de'Angelis N, Conso C, Bianchi G. et al; CERES (Collectif Eco-REsponsabilité en Santé). Systematic review of carbon footprint of surgical procedures. J Visc Surg 2024; 161 (2S): 7-14
- 22 Rizan C, Steinbach I, Nicholson R, Lillywhite R, Reed M, Bhutta MF. The carbon footprint of surgical operations: a systematic review. Ann Surg 2020; 272 (06) 986-995
- 23 Hudise JY, Mojiri ME, Shawish AM. et al. The role of virtual reality in advancing surgical training in otolaryngology: a systematic review. Cureus 2024; 16 (10) e71222
- 24 Cekic E, Pinar E, Pinar M, Dagcinar A. Deep learning-assisted segmentation and classification of brain tumor types on magnetic resonance and surgical microscope images. World Neurosurg 2024; 182: e196-e204
- 25 Wang J, Tozzi F, Ashraf Ganjouei A. et al. Machine learning improves prediction of postoperative outcomes after gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 2024; 28 (06) 956-965
- 26 Rajpurkar P, Irvin J, Ball RL. et al. Deep learning for chest radiograph diagnosis: a retrospective comparison of the CheXNeXt algorithm to practicing radiologists. PLoS Med 2018; 15 (11) e1002686
- 27 Wijnberge M, Geerts BF, Hol L. et al. Effect of a machine learning-derived early warning system for intraoperative hypotension vs standard care on depth and duration of intraoperative hypotension during elective noncardiac surgery: the HYPE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2020; 323 (11) 1052-1060
- 28 Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, Mullainathan S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 2019; 366 (6464): 447-453
- 29 Lam K, Abràmoff MD, Balibrea JM. et al. A Delphi consensus statement for digital surgery. NPJ Digit Med 2022; 5 (01) 100
- 30 Konda NN, Lewis TL, Furness HN, Miller GW, Metcalfe AJ, Ellard DR. Surgeon views regarding the adoption of a novel surgical innovation into clinical practice: systematic review. BJS Open 2024; 8 (01) zrad141
- 31 Dovramadjiev T, Dimova R, Dimov D, Manolova P. Human-Centered Innovations in Healthcare Education: Digital Skills for Ergonomics and Bioengineering Advancement. In: International Conference on Computer and Communication Engineering. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; May 24, 2024:209–216
- 32 Chau M. Ethical, legal, and regulatory landscape of artificial intelligence in Australian healthcare and ethical integration in radiography: a narrative review. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2024; 55 (04) 101733
