Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming surgical practice, with applications spanning preoperative planning, intraoperative guidance, postoperative management, and surgical education. Despite accelerating research activity, the structure, thematic evolution, and funding landscape of AI research in general surgery remain incompletely characterized. This study aimed to systematically evaluate scientific production on AI in general surgery in the United States over the past 5 years using a bibliometric approach.
Methods:
A bibliometric analysis was conducted following Preliminary Guideline for Reporting Bibliometric Reviews of the Biomedical Literature and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines using Web of Science. English-language articles published between 2020 and 2025 with a U.S.-affiliated senior author and focused on AI use in general surgery were included. Publications were analyzed across five primary domains: authorship metrics, thematic endpoints, journal characteristics, country of origin, and funding patterns. Bibliometric indicators included H-index, citation counts, Article Influence Score (AIS), and Bradford’s Law classification. Funding distribution across endpoints was evaluated using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests, with effect sizes estimated using Cramér’s V and odds ratios. Temporal trends in endpoints and keywords were assessed using Poisson and negative binomial regression models.
Results:
Fifty-nine studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 20 reviews and 39 original investigations. Scientific production increased consistently from one study in 2019 to 17 in 2023 and 16 in 2024, demonstrating sustained growth. Surgical workflow recognition (n = 19) and clinical decision support (n = 18) were the predominant research domains, representing 63% of the included literature. Temporal analysis demonstrated significant annual growth in reviews (Incidence rate ratios [IRR] 2.09, P = .002) and workflow-focused studies (IRR 1.37, P = .031). Keyword analysis revealed sustained prominence of AI and machine learning, with limited emergence of new thematic directions. Most studies reported no funding (57.6%). Although overall funding distribution did not significantly differ across application categories (P = .846), clinically actionable AI applications were significantly more likely to receive funding compared with other research areas (OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.22–13.13; P = .029).
Conclusion:
AI research in U.S. general surgery is growing but remains concentrated in workflow and decision-support domains. Funding favors clinically actionable applications, highlighting the need for broader, equity-focused AI development.
VargheseC, HarrisonEM, O’GradyG, et al.Artificial intelligence in surgery. Nat Med2024;30(5):1257–1268; doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-02970-3
2.
ZhangC, HallbeckMS, SalehinejadH, et al.The integration of artificial intelligence in robotic surgery: A narrative review. Surgery2024;176(3):552–557; doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.02.005
3.
WilliamsSC, ZhouJ, MuirheadWR, et al.Artificial intelligence assisted surgical scene recognition: A comparative study amongst healthcare professionals. Ann Surg2026;283(5):760–768; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006577
4.
VaseyB, LippertKAN, KhanDZ, et al.Intraoperative applications of artificial intelligence in robotic surgery: A scoping review of current development stages and levels of autonomy. Ann Surg2023;278(6):896–903; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005700
5.
HashimotoDA, RosmanG, RusD, et al.Artificial intelligence in surgery: Promises and perils. Ann Surg2018;268(1):70–76; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002693
6.
WahJNK. Revolutionizing surgery: AI and robotics for precision, risk reduction, and innovation. J Robot Surg2025;19(1):47; doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-02205-0
7.
MusbahiA, RaoCB, ImmanuelA. A bibliometric analysis of robotic surgery from 2001 to 2021. World J Surg2022;46(6):1314–1324; doi: 10.1007/s00268-022-06492-2
8.
MontazeriA, MohammadiS, HesariPM, et al.Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): A minimum requirements. Syst Rev2023;12(1):239; doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2
9.
PageMJ, McKenzieJE, BossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021;372:n71.
10.
BirkleC, PendleburyDA, SchnellJ, et al.Web of science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant Sci Stud2020;1(1):363–376; doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00018
BergstromCT. Eigenfactor: Measuring the value and prestige of scholarly journals. CRLN2007;68(5):314–316.
13.
OrtenziM, Rapoport FermanJ, AntolinA, et al.A novel high accuracy model for automatic surgical workflow recognition using artificial intelligence in laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TEP). Surg Endosc2023;37(11):8818–8828; doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10375-5
14.
RajeshA, ChartierC, AsaadM, et al.A synopsis of artificial intelligence and its applications in surgery. Am Surg2023;89(1):20–24; doi: 10.1177/00031348221109450
15.
PalenzuelaDL, MullenJT, PhitayakornR. AI Versus MD: Evaluating the surgical decision-making accuracy of ChatGPT-4. Surgery2024;176(2):241–245; doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.04.003
16.
PerumallaC, KearseL, PevenM, et al.AI-based video segmentation: Procedural steps or basic maneuvers? J Surg Res2023;283:500–506; doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.10.069
17.
GoodmanED, PatelKK, ZhangY, et al.Analyzing surgical technique in diverse open surgical videos with multitask machine learning. JAMA Surg2024;159(2):185–192; doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6262
18.
HsuJL, ChenKA, ButlerLR, et al.Application of machine learning to predict postoperative gastrointestinal bleed in bariatric surgery. Surg Endosc2023;37(9):7121–7127; doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10156-0
19.
LoftusTJ, TighePJ, FilibertoAC, et al.Artificial intelligence and surgical decision-making. JAMA Surg2020;155(2):148–158; doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.4917
20.
MadaniA, NamaziB, AltieriMS, et al.Artificial intelligence for intraoperative guidance: Using semantic segmentation to identify surgical anatomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Surg2022;276(2):363–369; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004594
21.
SchultzKS, HughesML, AkramWM, et al.Artificial intelligence for the colorectal surgeon in 2024 – A narrative review of prevalence, policies, and (needed) protections. Semin Colon Rectal Surg2024;35(3):101037; doi: 10.1016/j.scrs.2024.101037
22.
BoutrosC, SinghV, OcuinL, et al.Artificial intelligence in hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery - Promises and perils. Art Int Surg2022;2(4):213–223; doi: 10.20517/ais.2022.32
23.
DeolES, HenningG, BasourakosS, et al.Artificial intelligence model for automated surgical instrument detection and counting: An experimental proof-of-concept study. Patient Saf Surg2024;18(1):24; doi: 10.1186/s13037-024-00406-y
24.
El MohebM, GebranA, MaurerLR, et al.Artificial intelligence versus surgeon gestalt in predicting risk of emergency general surgery. J Trauma Acute Care Surg2023;95(4):565–572; doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000004030
25.
LoftusTJ, AltieriMS, BalchJA, et al.Artificial intelligence-enabled decision support in surgery: State-of-the-art and future directions. Ann Surg2023;278(1):51–58; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005853
26.
HechiME, WardTM, AnGC, et al.Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and surgical science: Reality versus hype. J Surg Res2021;264:A1–A9; doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.01.046
27.
SamaanJS, YeoYH, RajeevN, et al.Assessing the accuracy of responses by the language model ChatGPT to questions regarding bariatric surgery. Obes Surg2023;33(6):1790–1796; doi: 10.1007/s11695-023-06603-5
28.
SenthilKumarG, MadhusudhanaS, FlitcroftM, et al.Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) can predict 90-day mortality after gastrectomy for cancer. Sci Rep2023;13(1):11051; doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-37396-3
29.
HegdeSR, NamaziB, IyengarN, et al.Automated segmentation of phases, steps, and tasks in laparoscopic cholecystectomy using deep learning. Surg Endosc2024;38(1):158–170; doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10482-3
30.
ChoksiS, SzotS, ZangC, et al.Bringing artificial intelligence to the operating room: Edge computing for real-time surgical phase recognition. Surg Endosc2023;37(11):8778–8784; doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10322-4
31.
AndreattaP, SmithCS, GraybillJC, et al.Challenges and opportunities for artificial intelligence in surgery. J Def Model Simul2022;19(2):219–227; doi: 10.1177/15485129211022855
32.
KnudsenJE, GhaffarU, MaR, et al.Clinical applications of artificial intelligence in robotic surgery. J Robot Surg2024;18(1):102; doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-01867-0
33.
MorrisMX, FioccoD, CanevaT, et al.Current and future applications of artificial intelligence in surgery: Implications for clinical practice and research. Front Surg2024;11:1393898; doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1393898
34.
Navarrete-WeltonAJ, HashimotoDA. Current applications of artificial intelligence for intraoperative decision support in surgery. Front Med2020;14(4):369–381; doi: 10.1007/s11684-020-0784-7
35.
AntebyR, HoreshN, SofferS, et al.Deep learning visual analysis in laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis. Surg Endosc2021;35(4):1521–1533; doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08168-1
36.
YanikE, IntesX, KrugerU, et al.Deep neural networks for the assessment of surgical skills: A systematic review. J Def Model Simul2022;19(2):159–171; doi: 10.1177/15485129211034586
37.
ChenKA, JoisaCU, StitzenbergKB, et al.Development and validation of machine learning models to predict readmission after colorectal surgery. J Gastrointest Surg2022;26(11):2342–2350; doi: 10.1007/s11605-022-05443-5
38.
PattilachanTM, ChristodoulouM, RossS. Diagnosis to dissection: AI’s role in early detection and surgical intervention for gastric cancer. J Robot Surg2024;18(1):259; doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-02005-6
39.
ChenKA, BerginskiME, DesaiCS, et al.Differential performance of machine learning models in prediction of procedure-specific outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg2022;26(8):1732–1742; doi: 10.1007/s11605-022-05332-x
40.
DialsJ, DemirelD, Sanchez-AriasR, et al.Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: Stomach location and task classification for evaluation using artificial intelligence. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg2024;19(4):635–644; doi: 10.1007/s11548-023-03054-2
41.
RodlerS, GanjaviC, BackerPD, et al.Generative artificial intelligence in surgery. Surgery2024;175(6):1496–1502; doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.02.019
42.
BarO, NeimarkD, ZoharM, et al.Impact of data on generalization of AI for surgical intelligence applications. Sci Rep2020;10(1):22208; doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79173-6
43.
EgertM, StewardJE, SundaramCP. Machine learning and artificial intelligence in surgical fields. Indian J Surg Oncol2020;11(4):573–577; doi: 10.1007/s13193-020-01166-8
44.
MoavenO, TavolaraTE, ValenzuelaCD, et al.Machine learning models for predicting the outcomes of surgical treatment of colorectal liver metastases. J Am Coll Surg2023;236(4):884–893; doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000573
45.
ColeJ, HugheyS, MetzgerA, et al.Machine learning to predict fascial dehiscence after exploratory laparotomy surgery. J Surg Res2021;268:514–520; doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.06.068
46.
LimaDL, KasakewitchJ, NguyenDQ, et al.Machine learning, deep learning and hernia surgery. Are we pushing the limits of abdominal core health? A qualitative systematic review. Hernia2024;28(4):1405–1412; doi: 10.1007/s10029-024-03069-x
47.
MunirMM, EndoY, EjazA, et al.Online artificial intelligence platforms and their applicability to gastrointestinal surgical operations. J Gastrointest Surg2024;28(1):64–69; doi: 10.1016/j.gassur.2023.11.019
48.
RenY, LoftusTJ, DattaS, et al.Performance of a machine learning algorithm using electronic health record data to predict postoperative complications and report on a mobile platform. JAMA Netw Open2022;5(5):e2211973; doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.11973
49.
GebranA, VapsiA, MaurerLR, et al.POTTER-ICU: An artificial intelligence smartphone-accessible tool to predict the need for intensive care after emergency surgery. Surgery2022;172(1):470–475; doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.03.023
50.
HassanAM, Biaggi-OndinaA, RajeshA, et al.Predicting patient-reported outcomes following surgery using machine learning. Am Surg2023;89(1):31–35; doi: 10.1177/00031348221109478
51.
AyusoSA, ElhageSA, ZhangY, et al.Predicting rare outcomes in abdominal wall reconstruction using image-based deep learning models. Surgery2023;173(3):748–755; doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.06.048
52.
HunterOF, PerryF, SalehiM, et al.Science fiction or clinical reality: A review of the applications of artificial intelligence along the continuum of trauma care. World J Emerg Surg2023;18(1):16; doi: 10.1186/s13017-022-00469-1
53.
KorndorfferJRJ, HawnMT, SpainDA, et al.Situating artificial intelligence in surgery: A focus on disease severity. Ann Surg2020;272(3):523–528; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004207
54.
BanY, RosmanG, EckhoffJA, et al.SUPR-GAN: SUrgical PRediction GAN for event anticipation in laparoscopic and robotic surgery. IEEE Robot Autom Lett2022;7(2):5741–5748; doi: 10.1109/LRA.2022.3156856
55.
CobianchiL, PiccoloD, Dal MasF, Team Dynamics Study Group. et al.; Surgeons’ perspectives on artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making in trauma and emergency contexts: Results from an international survey. World J Emerg Surg2023;18(1):22; doi: 10.1186/s13017-022-00467-3
56.
ZangC, TurkcanMK, NarasimhanS, et al.Surgical phase recognition in inguinal hernia repair—AI-based confirmatory baseline and exploration of competitive models. Bioengineering (Basel)2023;10(6):654; doi: 10.3390/bioengineering10060654
57.
RiddleEW, KewalramaniD, NarayanM, et al.Surgical simulation: Virtual reality to artificial intelligence. Curr Probl Surg2024;61(11):101625; doi: 10.1016/j.cpsurg.2024.101625
58.
EckhoffJA, BanY, RosmanG, et al.TEsoNet: Knowledge transfer in surgical phase recognition from laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to the laparoscopic part of Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy. Surg Endosc2023;37(5):4040–4053; doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-09971-2
59.
Rojas-MuñozE, CouperusK, WachsJP. The AI-Medic: An artificial intelligent mentor for trauma surgery. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2021;9(3):313–321; doi: 10.1080/21681163.2020.1835548
60.
Al AbbasAI, NamaziB, RadiI, et al.The development of a deep learning model for automated segmentation of the robotic pancreaticojejunostomy. Surg Endosc2024;38(5):2553–2561; doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-10725-x
61.
VelmahosCS, PaschalidisA, ParanjapeCN. The not-so-distant future or just hype? Utilizing machine learning to predict 30-day post-operative complications in laparoscopic colectomy patients. Am Surg2023;89(12):5648–5654; doi: 10.1177/00031348231167397
62.
DagliMM, RajeshA, AsaadM, et al.The use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in surgery: A comprehensive literature review. Am Surg2023;89(5):1980–1988; doi: 10.1177/00031348211065101
63.
PreyBJ, ColburnZT, WilliamsJM, et al.The use of mobile thermal imaging and machine learning technology for the detection of early surgical site infections. Am J Surg2024;231:60–64; doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.04.011
64.
MohaidatM, Rashidi FathabadiF, AlkhamaisehKN, et al.Towards the development of an automated assessment system for the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery tests. Acta Polytech Hung2024;21(10):37–56; doi: 10.12700/APH.21.10.2024.10.3
65.
YangJH, GoodmanED, DawesAJ, et al.Using AI and computer vision to analyze technical proficiency in robotic surgery. Surg Endosc2023;37(4):3010–3017; doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09781-y
66.
MaurerLR, ChetlurP, ZhuoD, et al.Validation of the Al-based Predictive OpTimal Trees in Emergency Surgery Risk (POTTER) calculator in patients 65 years and older. Ann Surg2023;277(1):e8–e15; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004714
67.
El HechiMW, MaurerLR, LevineJ, et al.Validation of the artificial intelligence-based Predictive Optimal Trees in Emergency Surgery Risk (POTTER) calculator in emergency general surgery and emergency laparotomy patients. J Am Coll Surg2021;232(6):912–919.e1; doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.02.009
68.
BaloulMS, YehVJ-H, MukhtarF, et al.Video commentary & machine learning: Tell me what you see, I tell you who you are. J Surg Educ2022;79(6):e263–e272; doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.09.022
69.
Daneshgar RahbarM, YingH, PandyaA. Visual intelligence: Prediction of unintentional surgical-tool-induced bleeding during robotic and laparoscopic surgery. Robotics2021;10(1):37; doi: 10.3390/robotics10010037
70.
GrovesP, KayyaliB, KnottD, et al.The “big data” revolution in US health care: Accelerating value and innovation. McKinsey & Company Report; 2013. Available from: https://www.mckinsey.com
71.
MasalonisA, NelsonC, Reinerman-JonesL, et al.Trust, security, and regulatory compliance in AI: Literature and practical experience, and the way forward for AI in healthcare. Quant Soc Sci2025;14(1):1–5; doi: 10.1177/2327857925141001
72.
ZhangYB, FischerFS, AbolaMV, et al.Do ChatGPT and Gemini’s recommendations align with established guidelines for hand and upper extremity surgery? Hand (N Y)2025; doi: 10.1177/15589447251371089
73.
BrandãoPR. The impact of artificial intelligence on modern society. AI (Basel)2025;6(8):190; doi: 10.3390/ai6080190
SticcaRP, JohnsonSW. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. Surg Clin North Am2020;100(1); doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2019.08.003
76.
YangJ, DungNT, ThachPN, et al.Generalizability assessment of AI models across hospitals in a low-middle and high income country. Nat Commun2024;15(1):8270; doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52618-6
77.
Hedt-GauthierBL, RivielloR, NkurunzizaT, et al.Growing research in global surgery with an eye towards equity. Br J Surg2019;106(2):e151–e155; doi: 10.1002/bjs.11066
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
