Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74:229–263.
Sasako M. Progress in the treatment of gastric cancer in Japan over the last 50 years. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2020;4:21–9.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines 2021 (6th edition). Gastric Cancer. 2023;26(1):1–25.
Shibasaki S, Suda K, Hisamori S, Obama K, Terashima M, Uyama I. Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: systematic review and future directions. Gastric Cancer. 2023;26:325–38.
Parisi A, Reim D, Borghi F, Nguyen NT, Qi F, Coratti A, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: a comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23:2376–84.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Ryan S, Tameron A, Murphy A, Hussain L, Dunki-Jacobs E, Lee DY. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma: propensity-matched analysis. Surg Innov. 2020;27(1):26–31.
Li ZY, Zhou YB, Li TY, Li JP, Zhou ZW, She JJ, et al. Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a multicenter cohort study of 5402 patients in China. Ann Surg. 2023;277:e87–95.
Suda K, Yamamoto H, Nishigori T, Obama K, Yoda Y, Hikage M, et al. Safe implementation of robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer under the requirements for universal health insurance coverage: a retrospective cohort study using a nationwide registry database in Japan. Gastric Cancer. 2022;25:438–49.
Lu J, Zheng CH, Xu BB, Xie JW, Wang JB, Lin JX, et al. Assessment of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2021;273:858–67.
Shimoike N, Nishigori T, Yamashita Y, Kondo M, Manaka D, Kadokawa Y, et al. Safety assessment of robotic gastrectomy and analysis of surgical learning process: a multicenter cohort study. Gastric Cancer. 2022;25:817–26.
Tokunaga M, Kurokawa Y, Machida R, Sato Y, Takiguchi S, Doki Y, et al. Impact of postoperative complications on survival outcomes in patients with gastric cancer: exploratory analysis of a randomized controlled JCOG1001 trial. Gastric Cancer. 2021;24:214–23.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: 5 year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–96.
Suliburk JW, Buck QM, Pirko CJ, Massarweh NN, Barshes NR, Singh H, et al. Analysis of human performance deficiencies associated with surgical adverse events. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e198067.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Khan DZ, Valetopoulou A, Das A, Hanrahan JG, Williams SC, Bano S, et al. Artificial intelligence assisted operative anatomy recognition in endoscopic pituitary surgery. NPJ Digit Med. 2024;7(1):314.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Nakamura T, Kobayashi N, Kumazu Y, Fukata K, Murakami M, Kohno S, et al. Precise highlighting of the pancreas by semantic segmentation during robot-assisted gastrectomy: visual assistance with artificial intelligence for surgeons. Gastric Cancer. 2024;27:869–875.
Kumazu Y, Kobayashi N, Senya S, Negishi Y, Kinoshita K, Fukui Y, et al. AI-based visualization of loose connective tissue as a dissectable layer in gastrointestinal surgery. Sci Rep. 2025;15:152.
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Aoyama Y, Matsunobu Y, Etoh T, Suzuki K, Fujita S, Aiba T, et al. Artificial intelligence for surgical safety during laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: indication of anatomical landmarks related to postoperative pancreatic fistula using deep learning. Surg Endosc. 2024;38:5601–12.
Okumura S, Tsunoda S, Hisamori S, Kitano S, Ueno K, Sakaguchi M, et al. Artificial intelligence-supported system of surgical anatomy recognition may facilitate the understanding of gastrointestinal surgery for medical students. Surg Endosc. 2025;39:7078–7086.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Nakao E, Igeta M, Kobayashi N, Kumazu Y, Otani Y, Murakami M, et al. Effectiveness of artificial intelligence-based visualization for surgical anatomy education: a cluster quasirandomized controlled trial. Surgery. 2025;188:109723.
Ikeda J, Takeuchi M, Kawakubo H, Yura M, Kinoshita T, Morito A, et al. Assessment of AI-driven anatomical recognition in robotic gastrectomy: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Surg Endosc. 2025;39(12):8349–8356.
Mizota T, Anton NE, Stefanidis D. Surgeons see anatomical structures faster and more accurately compared to novices: development of a pattern recognition skill assessment platform. Am J Surg. 2019;217:222–227.
Madani A, Namazi B, Altieri MS, Hashimoto DA, Rivera AM, Pucher PH, et al. Artificial intelligence for intraoperative guidance: using semantic segmentation to identify surgical anatomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg. 2022;276:363–369.
Furube T, Takeuchi M, Kawakubo H, Noma K, Maeda N, Daiko H, et al. Usefulness of an artificial intelligence model in recognizing recurrent laryngeal nerves during robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024;31:9344–9351.
Tomita K, Takeuchi M, Takayama M, Kim MP, Maxwell JE, Snyder RA, et al. Development of a novel artificial intelligence model to recognize vascular anatomy during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy. Br J Surg. 2025;112(11):znaf255.
Kinoshita K, Maruyama T, Kobayashi N, Imanishi S, Maruyama M, Ohira G, et al. An artificial intelligence-based nerve recognition model is useful as surgical support technology and as an educational tool in laparoscopic and robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery. Surg Endosc. 2024;38:5394–5404.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105–1112.
Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM, Altman DG, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet. 2009;374:1089–1096.
Almukhtar A, Caddick V, Naik R, Goble M, Mylonas G, Darzi A, et al. Objective assessment of cognitive workload in surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2025;281:942–951.
Yu F, Moehring A, Banerjee O, Salz T, Agarwal N, Rajpurkar P. Heterogeneity and predictors of the effects of AI assistance on radiologists. Nat Med. 2024;30:837–49.
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Furube T, Takeuchi M, Kawakubo H, Noma K, Maeda N, Daiko H, et al. Impact of artificial intelligence on the timing of recurrent laryngeal nerve recognition during robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2025;32:6366–6373.
Maier-Hein L, Reinke A, Godau P, Tizabi MD, Buettner F, Christodoulou E, et al. Metrics reloaded: recommendations for image analysis validation. Nat Methods. 2024;21:195–212.
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kolbinger FR, Rinner FM, Jenke AC, Carstens M, Krell S, Leger S, et al. Anatomy segmentation in laparoscopic surgery: comparison of machine learning and human expertise—an experimental study. Int J Surg. 2023;109:2962–74.
Comments (0)