Эволюция моделей в урологической хирургии и трансплантологии: от лабораторных животных до искусственного интеллекта

Актуальность. Эксперименты на животных играют важную роль в современной хирургии, позволяют разработать новые операционные техники, материалы для трансплантатов и др. Помимо животных в современной хирургии и трансплантологии активно используются роботизированные системы и искусственный интеллект, способные минимизировать интраоперационные кровопотери, частоту раневых инфекций, осуществить подбор «донор–реципиент», прогнозировать выживаемость трансплантата и многое др. Цель: анализ эволюции хирургических моделей in vivo и оценка современных стратегий трансплантации и эксплантации. Материалы и методы. Поиск литературы в базе данных Scopus, PubMed и РИНЦ с использованием поискового запроса «хирургические модели на животных», «трансплантация почки», «ксенотрансплантация», «искусственный интеллект в трансплантологии и хирургии», «роботизированная хирургия». Проанализировано 430 публикаций в отечественных и зарубежных журналах за 2006–2025 гг. В результате отбора в обзор были включены 87 публикаций. Прослежена трансформация от анатомических исследований к сложным хирургическим системам. Ключевым этапом стало внедрение моделей для трансплантации почки на крупных животных (свиньях). Современный этап характеризуется интеграцией роботических систем и искусственного интеллекта, обеспечивающих минимальную инвазивность и точность. Заключение. Проведение испытаний на лабораторных животных необходимо, особенно при выполнении хирургических операций, моделирование которых математически невозможно.

1. Haam S, Noda K, Philips BJ, Harano T, Sanchez PG, Shigemura N. Cyclosporin A administration during ex vivo lung perfusion preserves lung grafts in rat transplant model. Transplantation. 2020; 104 (9): e252–e259. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000003237.

2. Woillard JB, Labriffe M, Debord J, Marquet P. Mycophenolic acid exposure prediction using machine learning. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021; 110 (2): 370–379. doi: 10.1002/cpt.2216.

3. Divard G, Raynaud M, Tatapudi VS, Abdalla B, Bailly E, Assayag M et al. Comparison of artificial intelligence and human-based prediction and stratification of the risk of long-term kidney allograft failure. Commun Med (Lond). 2022; 2 (1): 150. doi: 10.1038/s43856-022-00201-9.

4. Li H, Han Z, Wu H, Musaev ER, Lin Y, Li S et al. Artificial intelligence in surgery: evolution, trends, and future directions. Int J Surg. 2025; 111 (2): 2101–2111. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000002159.

5. Shan J. Surgical Robotics: Recent Development Trends and Challenges. In: 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Technologies for Industrial Automation (ROBOTHIA). 2025: 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ROBOTHIA63806.2025.10986348.

6. Cole BJ, Chahla JA, Chubinskaya SG, Gilat R, Frank RM, Yanke AB. Optimizing Patient Outcomes Following Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation: The Impact of 25 Years of Translational and Clinical Research. J Orthop Res. 2025; 43 (10): 1705–1723. doi: 10.1002/jor.26089.

7. Ali H, Shroff A, Soliman K, Molnar MZ, Sharif A, Burke B et al. Improved survival prediction for kidney transplant outcomes using artificial intelligence-based models: development of the UK Deceased Donor Kidney Transplant Outcome Prediction (UK-DTOP) Tool. Ren Fail. 2024; 46 (2): 2373273. doi: 10.1080/0886022X.2024.2373273.

8. Sundaram V, Infant SS, Saravanan A, Bhavani SB, Gulothungan G, Arora S, Chopra H. Innovative animal models for surgical interventions and implant biocompatibility: a translational perspective. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2025 Jul 18; 87 (10): 6496–6509. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000003610.

9. Kovesdy CP. Epidemiology of chronic kidney disease: an update 2022. Kidney Int Suppl. 2022; 12 (1): 7–11. doi: 10.1016/j.kisu.2021.11.003.

10. Flythe JE, Watnick S. Dialysis for chronic kidney failure: a review. JAMA. 2024; 332 (18): 1559–1573. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.16338.

11. Lewis A, Koukoura A, Tsianos GI, Gargavanis AA, Nielsen AA, Vassiliadis E. Organ donation in the US and Europe: the supply vs demand imbalance. Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2021; 35 (2): 100585. doi: 10.1016/j.trre.2020.100585.

12. Meier RPH, Ben Nasr M, Fife BT, Finger EB, Fiorina P, Luo X, Bromberg JS. Best practices in islet transplantation in mice. Am J Transplant. 2025; 25 (7): 1399–1409. doi: 10.1016/j.ajt.2025.03.008.

13. Garcia Valencia OA, Thongprayoon C, Jadlowiec CC, Mao SA, Leeaphorn N, Budhiraja P et al. Evaluating Global and Temporal Trends in Pancreas and Islet Cell Transplantation: Public Awareness and Engagement. Clin Pract. 2024; 14 (2): 590–601. doi: 10.3390/clin-pract14020046.

14. Son J, Shin JY, Kim HD, Jung KH, Park KH, Park SJ. Development and validation of deep learning models for screening multiple abnormal findings in retinal fundus images. Ophthalmology. 2020; 127 (1): 85–94. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.05.029.

15. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.

16. Ilevbare IM, Phaal R, Probert DR. A review of TRIZ, and its benefits and challenges in practice. Technovation. 2013; 33 (2–3): 30–37. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2012.11.003.

17. Seifalian A, Digesu A, Khullar V. The use of animal models in preclinical investigations for the development of a surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2024; 35 (4): 741–758. doi: 10.1007/s00192-024-05741-3.

18. He YJ, Liu PL, Wei T, Liu T, Li YF, Yang J, Fan WX. Artificial intelligence in kidney transplantation: a 30-year bibliometric analysis of research trends, innovations, and future directions. Ren Fail. 2025; 47 (1): 2458754. doi: 10.1080/0886022X.2025.2458754.

19. Rojas Burbano JC, Ruiz NI, Rojas Burbano GA, Guacho Inca JS, Arragan Lezama CA, González MS. Robot-Assisted Surgery: Current Applications and Future Trends in General Surgery. Cureus. 2025; 17 (4): e82318. doi: 10.7759/cureus.82318.

20. Barandiaran Cornejo JF, Chin LT, Angelis M. From Carrel to Robotics: Renal Transplantation and the Evolution of its Surgical Technique. Curr Urol Rep. 2025; 26 (1). doi: 10.1007/s11934-025-01265-5.

21. Zeuschner P, Friedersdorff F, Siemer S, Stöckle M. Aktuelles zur robotischen Nierentransplantation – quo vadis? Urologie. 2024; 63 (4): 361–366. doi: 10.1007/s00120-024-02293-8.

22. Kalyan KS, Rajasekharan A, Sangeetha S. AMMU: a survey of transformer-based biomedical pretrained language models. J Biomed Inform. 2022; 126: 103982. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2021.103982.

23. Dave T, Athaluri SA, Singh S. ChatGPT in medicine: an overview of its applications, advantages, limitations, future prospects, and ethical considerations. Front Artif Intell. 2023; 6: 1169595. doi: 10.3389/frai.2023.1169595.

24. Xie C, Piao M, Zhou L, Tao X, Yao Y, Jiang B et al. Emerging trends and hotspots in animal experimental research on lung transplantation from 2004 to 2023: a bibliometric analysis. J Thorac Dis. 2025; 17 (2): 796–815. doi: 10.21037/jtd-24-1451.

25. Heinis FI, Merani S, Markin NW, Duncan KF, Moulton MJ, Fristoe L et al. Considerations for the use of porcine organ donation models in preclinical organ donor intervention research. Anim Model Exp Med. 2024; 7 (3): 283–296. doi: 10.1002/ame2.12411.

26. Matar AJ, Crepeau RL, Mundinger GS, Cetrulo CL Jr, Torabi R. Large Animal Models of Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation: A Review of Immune Strategies to Improve Allograft Outcomes. Front Immunol. 2021; 12: 664577. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.664577.

27. Byrne GW, McGregor CGA. 2025: status of cardiac xenotransplantation including preclinical models. Front Transplant. 2025; 4: 1568910. doi: 10.3389/frt-ra.2025.1568910.

28. Niroomand A, Nita GE, Lindstedt S. Machine Perfusion and Bioengineering Strategies in Transplantation. Beyond the Emerging Concepts. Transpl Int. 2024; 37: 13215. doi: 10.3389/ti.2024.13215.

29. Beagan MLC, Dreyer CH, Jensen LK, Jensen HE, Andersen TE, Overgaard S, Ding M. The potential of sheep in preclinical models for bone infection research. A systematic review. J Orthop Transl. 2024; 45: 120–131. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2024.02.002.

30. Cutrone AM, Ozgur OS, Lyon A, Longchamp A, Madsen JC, Yeh H, Uygun K. Cryopreservation Strategies to Improve Access to Organ Transplantation. Transplantation. 2026 Jan 1; 110 (1): e42–e54. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000005494.

31. Kawai T, Williams WW, Elias N, Fishman JA, Crisalli K, Longchamp A et al. Xenotransplantation of a Porcine Kidney for End-Stage Kidney Disease. N Engl J Med. 2025; 392 (19): 1933–1940. doi: 10.1056/NEJ-Moa2412747.

32. Nykänen AI, Keshavjee S, Liu M. Creating superior lungs for transplantation with next-generation gene therapy during ex vivo lung perfusion. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2024; 43 (5): 838–848. doi: 10.1016/j.hea-lun.2024.01.016.

33. Biswas P, Sikander S, Kulkarni P. Recent advances in robot-assisted surgical systems. Biomed Eng Adv. 2023; 6: 100109. doi: 10.1016/j.bea.2023.100109.

34. Intuitive Surgical. Da Vinci X: a foundational entry point to robotic surgery. 2025. https://www.intuitive.com/enus/products-and-services/da-vinci/x.

35. Krebs TF, Kayser T, Lorenzen U, Grünewald M, Kayser M, Saltner A et al. Evaluation of the Versius robotic system for infant surgery – a study in piglets of less than 10 kg body weight. Children (Basel). 2023; 10 (5): 831. doi: 10.3390/children10050831.

36. Hancock KJ, Klimberg VS, Nunez‑Lopez O, Gajjar AH, Gomez G, Tyler DS, Rashidi L. Optimizing outcomes in colorectal surgery: cost and clinical analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches to colon resection. J Robot Surg. 2022; 16: 107–112. doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01205-8.

37. Reddy K, Gharde P, Tayade H, Patil M, Reddy LS, Surya D. Advancements in robotic surgery: a comprehensive overview of current utilizations and upcoming frontiers. Cureus. 2023; 15 (12): e50415. doi: 10.7759/cureus.50415.

38. Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB. Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3 (1): e1918911. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911.

39. Liu Q, Zhang W, Zhao JJ, Syn NL, Cipriani F, Alzoubi M et al. Propensity-score matched and coarsened-exact matched analysis comparing robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomies: an international multicenter study of 4822 cases. Ann Surg. 2023; 278: 969–975. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005855.

40. Rivero‑Moreno Y, Echevarria S, Vidal‑Valderrama C, Pianetti L, Cordova‑Guilarte J, Navarro‑Gonzalez J et al. Robotic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature and current trends. Cureus. 2023; 15 (7): e42370. doi: 10.7759/cureus.42370.

41. Cepolina F, Razzoli RP. An introductory review of robotically assisted surgical systems. Int J Med Robot. 2022; 18 (4): e2409. doi: 10.1002/rcs.2409.

42. AlSajri AA, Hariry N. The future of surgery: robotic-assisted procedures and their impact. SHIFAA. 2024; 2024: 52–55.

43. Lunardi N, Abou‑Zamzam A, Florecki KL, Chidambaram S, Shih IF, Kent AJ et al. Robotic technology in emergency general surgery cases in the era of minimally invasive surgery. JAMA Surg. 2024; 159 (5): 493–499. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2024.0016.

44. Perry R, Barbosa JP, Perry I, Barbosa J. Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18,187 patients. J Robot Surg. 2024; 18: 123. doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-01880-3.

45. Picozzi P, Nocco U, Labate C, Gambini I, Puleo G, Silvi F et al. Advances in robotic surgery: a review of new surgical platforms. Electronics. 2024; 13 (23): 4675. doi: 10.3390/electronics13234675.

46. Bobade S, Asutkar S. Current trends and future directions in surgery: a brief scoping review. Multidiscip Rev. 2025; 8: 2025028. doi: 10.31893/multirev.2025028.

47. Wehrle CJ, Chang JH, Gross AR, Woo K, Naples R, Stackhouse KA et al. Comparing oncologic and surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer: a propensity-matched analysis. Surg Endosc. 2024; 38 (5): 2602–2610. doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-10783-1.

48. Paquette FX, Ghassemi A, Bukhtiyarova O, Cisse M, Gagnon N, Della Vecchia A et al. Machine learning support for decision-making in kidney transplantation: step-by-step development of a technological solution. JMIR Med Inform. 2022; 10 (6): e34554. doi: 10.2196/34554.

49. Alowidi N, Ali R, Sadaqah M, Naemi FMA. Advancing kidney transplantation: a machine learning approach to enhance donor-recipient matching. Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14 (19): 2119. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14192119.

50. Zingraf G, Derkowski DM, Pizarro YI, Woodard A. U.S. Organ Transplantation System – its history, present, and future. Nephrol Nurs J. 2023; 50 (3): 197–202. doi: 10.37526/1526-744X.2023.50.3.197.

51. Dagnino G, Kundrat D. Robot-assistive minimally invasive surgery: trends and future directions. Int J Intell Robot Appl. 2024; 8: 812–826. doi: 10.1007/s41315-024-00340-3.

52. Liu H, Ren L, Fan B, Wang W, Hu X, Zhang X. Artificial intelligence algorithm-based MRI in the diagnosis of complications after renal transplantation. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2022; 2022: 8930584. doi: 10.1155/2022/8930584.

53. Mata‑Lima A, Paquete AR, Serrano‑Olmedo JJ. Remote patient monitoring and management in nephrology: a systematic review. Nefrologia. 2024; 44 (5): 639–667. doi: 10.1016/j.nefroe.2024.10.011.

54. Yeter HH, Manani SM, Ronco C. The utility of remote patient management in peritoneal dialysis. Clin Kidney J. 2021; 14 (12): 2483–2489. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfab111.

55. Raynaud M, Aubert O, Divard G, Reese PP, Kamar N, Yoo D et al. Dynamic prediction of renal survival among deeply phenotyped kidney transplant recipients using artificial intelligence: an observational, international, multicohort study. Lancet Digit Health. 2021; 3 (12): e795– e805. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00209-0.

56. Thongprayoon C, Miao J, Jadlowiec C, Mao SA, Mao M, Leeaphorn N et al. Distinct clinical profiles and post-transplant outcomes among kidney transplant recipients with lower education levels: uncovering patterns through machine learning clustering. Ren Fail. 2023; 45 (2): 2292163. doi: 10.1080/0886022X.2023.2292163.

57. Badrouchi S, Bacha MM, Ahmed A, Ben Abdallah T, Abderrahim E. Predicting long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation in the era of artificial intelligence. Sci Rep. 2023; 13 (1): 21273. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-48645-w.

58. Garcia Valencia OA, Thongprayoon C, Miao J, Bruminhent J, Craici IM, Cheungpasitporn W. Perspectives on AI-based recommendations for mask-wearing and COVID-19 vaccination for transplant recipients in the post-COVID-19 era. Ren Fail. 2024; 46 (1): 2337291. doi: 10.1080/0886022X.2024.2337291.

59. Fu Q, Agarwal D, Deng K, Matheson R, Yang H, Wei L et al. An unbiased machine learning exploration reveals gene sets predictive of allograft tolerance after kidney transplantation. Front Immunol. 2021; 12: 695806. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.695806.

60. Halloran PF, Reeve J, Madill‑Thomsen KS, Demko Z, Prewett A, Billings P. The Trifecta Study: comparing plasma levels of donor-derived cell-free DNA with the molecular phenotype of kidney transplant biopsies. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2022; 33 (2): 387–400. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2021091191.

61. Li Y, Zhang J, Qiu X, Zhang Y, Wu J, Bi Q et al. Diverse regulated cell death patterns and immune traits in kidney allograft with fibrosis: a prediction of renal allograft failure based on machine learning, single-nucleus RNA sequencing and molecular docking. Ren Fail. 2024; 46 (2): 2435487. doi: 10.1080/0886022X.2024.2435487.

62. Buscher K, Heitplatz B, van Marck V, Song J, Loismann S, Rixen R et al. Data-driven kidney transplant phenotyping as a histology-independent framework for biomarker discovery. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021; 32 (8): 1933–1945. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2020121685.

63. Yang S, Hou W, Liu L. Progress in preservation of intestinal grafts by oxygenated hypothermic machine perfusion. Transplant Rev. 2024; 38 (1): 100802. doi: 10.1016/j. trre.2023.100802.

64. Srivastava PK, Kittleson MM. Modern advances in heart transplantation. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2024; 82: 147–156. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2024.01.012.

65. Cheng H, Cui Z, Guo S, Zhang X, Huo Y, Mao S. Mucoadhesive versus mucopenetrating nanoparticles for oral delivery of insulin. Acta Biomater. 2021; 135: 506–519. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2021.08.046.

66. Alexander S, Moghadam MG, Rothenbroker M, Chou LYT. Addressing the in vivo delivery of nucleicacid nanostructure therapeutics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2023; 199: 114898. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2023.114898.

67. Coutance G, Chong AS, Habal MV. Novel pretransplant desensitization strategies in heart transplantation. JHLT Open. 2025; 8: 100242. doi: 10.1016/j.jhl-to.2025.100242.

68. Marfil‑Garza BA, Hefler J, Bermudez De Leon M, Pawlick R, Dadheech N, Shapiro AMJ. Progress in Translational Regulatory T Cell Therapies for Type 1 Diabetes and Islet Transplantation. Endocr Rev. 2021; 42 (2): 198–218. doi: 10.1210/endrev/bnaa028.

69. Tian Q, Wu C, Xu Y, Zhao Y. Experimental research progress on immunology of organ transplantation in 2020. Organ Transplant. 2021; 12 (2): 143–154. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7445.2021.02.004.

70. Cramer EEA, Ito K, Hofmann S. Ex vivo Bone Models and Their Potential in Preclinical Evaluation. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2021; 19 (1): 75–87. doi: 10.1007/s11914-020-00649-5.

71. Ravi K, Manoharan TJM, Wang KC, Pockaj B, Nikkhah M. Engineered 3D ex vivo models to recapitulate the complex stromal and immune interactions within the tumor microenvironment. Biomaterials. 2024; 305: 122428. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2023.122428.

72. Guo W, Zhang X, Zhai J, Xue J. The roles and applications of neural stem cells in spinal cord injury repair. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022; 10: 966866. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.966866.

73. Faria I, Canizares S, Viana P, Kueht M. II. Navigating the changing landscape of transplant research: Trends, topics, and gender disparities. Am J Surg. 2025; 239: 116003. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.116003.

74. Carneiro CFD, Drude N, Hülsemann M, Collazo A, Toelch U. Mapping strategies towards improved external validity in preclinical translational research. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2023; 18 (11): 1273–1285. doi: 10.1080/17460441.2023.2251886.

75. Zgoura P, Seibert FS, Waldecker C, Doevelaar A, Bauer F, Rohn B et al. Psychological Responses to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in Renal Transplant Recipients. Transplant Proc. 2020; 52 (9): 2671–2675. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.08.043.

76. Martins PNA. Kidney Transplantation in the rat: A modified technique using hydrodissection. Microsurgery. 2006; 26: 543–546.

77. Ahmadi AR, Qi L, Iwasaki K, Wang W, Wesson RN, Cameron AM, Sun Z. Orthotopic Rat Kidney Transplantantation: A Novel and Simplified Surgical Approach. J Vis Exp. 2019 May 7; (147): e59403. doi: 10.3791/59403.

78. Gueler F, Shushakova N, Mengel M, Hueper K, Chen R, Liu X et al. A Novel Therapy to Attenuate Acute Kidney Injury and Ischemic Allograft Damage after Allogenic Kidney Transplantantation in Mice. PLoS One. 2015; 10 (1): e0115709. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115709.

79. Mirioglu S, Morelle J, Efe O. Thrombotic microangiopathy after kidney transplantation: diagnosis and management strategies. Clin Kidney J. 2026 Jan 24; 19 (3): sfag018. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfag018.

80. Zhao D, Liao T, Li S, Zhang Y, Zheng H, Zhou J et al. Mouse Model Established by Early Renal Transplantantation After Skin Allograft Sensitization Mimics Clinical Antibody-Mediated Rejection. Front Immunol. 2018; 9: 1356. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01356.

81. Al‑Shalawi FD, Mohamed Ariff AH, Jung DW, Mohd Ariffin MKA, Seng Kim CL, Brabazon D, Al‑Osaimi MO. Biomaterials as implants in the orthopedic field for regenerative medicine: metal versus synthetic polymers. Polymers (Basel). 2023; 15 (12): 2601. doi: 10.3390/polym15122601.

82. Versteegden LRM, de Jonge PKJD, IntHout J, van Kuppevelt TH, Oosterwijk E, Feitz WFJ et al. Tissue engineering of the urethra: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies. Eur Urol. 2017; 72 (4): 594–606. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.026.

83. Кабанова СА, Богопольский ПМ. Пересадка почки: история, итоги и перспективы (к 50-летию первой успешной пересадки почки в России). Трансплантология. 2015; (2): 49–58. https://doi.org/10.23873/2074-0506-2015-0-2-104.

84. Шабунин АВ, Дроздов ПА, Макеев ДА, Нестеренко ИВ, Журавель ОС, Астапович СА, Лиджиева ЭА. Влияние элиминации вторичной тепловой ишемии на функцию почечного трансплантата: эксперимент и клиническое исследование. Вестник трансплантологии и искусственных органов. 2023; 25 (2): 26–37. doi: 10.15825/1995-1191-2023-2-26-37.

85. Гусев АА. Какие нейросети и как может использовать врач-уролог в своей ежедневной работе: практические рекомендации. Вестник урологии. 2025; 13 (1): 99–109. doi: 10.21886/2308-6424-2025-13-1-99-109.

86. Щамхалова КК, Меринов ДС, Артемов АВ, Гурбанов ШШ. Искусственный интеллект и нейронные сети в урологии. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2023; 16 (2): 32–37. https://doi.org/10.29188/2222-8543-2023-16-2-32-37.

87. Кобринский БА. Системы искусственного интеллекта в хирургии: возможности, ограничения и перспективы. Обзор литературы. Российский вестник детской хирургии, анестезиологии и реаниматологии. 2023; 13 (3): 385–404. https://doi.org/10.17816/psaic1547.