Surgical Technologists

Some routine tasks in surgery already use tech helpers, but humans still lead. For example, counting sponges and instruments can be aided by new devices. Hospitals use special tagged sponges or scanners so staff can check counts with an RFID wand or X-ray device ^{[1] [2]}.

One study showed a new low-dose X-ray scanner could count gauze pads accurately in minutes ^[2]. However, experts emphasize these tools “augment” the human’s work – they help double-check, but do not replace the team’s manual count ^[1]. Cleaning and sterilizing instruments is partly automated: big autoclave washers handle the main sterilization process ^[2], though techs still scrub and pack instruments before and after.

Hospitals also use barcodes or tracking systems for tissue samples, which has cut errors and sped up lab processing ^[2]. Patient monitors automatically record vital signs, and supply software tracks inventory, so those tasks are largely tech-supported. The most personal tasks – handing instruments, holding retractors and adapting to surgeons’ needs – remain very human.

Even in robot-assisted surgeries, the surgical technologist stays at the patient’s side to pass tools and troubleshoot in real time ^[3]. In short, AI and machines now help with counts and cleaning, but the skilled, hands-on parts of the job still need people ^{[1] [3]}.

Introducing new AI tools in the operating room involves many factors. Safety and cost are big concerns. Hospitals must see clear benefit before adopting expensive tech.

For example, special RFID systems to count sponges cost an extra \$35–\$50 per procedure ^[1]. Studies have found that many high-tech counting devices never became common, partly because hospitals found them hard to fit into existing workflows ^[2]. Health care teams are cautious: they know any failure can harm patients, so new systems are used as backups, not replacements ^{[1] [2]}.

On the other hand, hospitals face staff shortages and high costs of mistakes. In one trial, a computerized specimen-tracking system cut errors and turnaround time for lab samples ^[2]. This shows the promise of automation.

Overall, AI in surgery is likely to grow slowly. It will mainly assist people – for example, by tracking tools or reminding teams about checks – while humans provide judgement, adaptability and care. Researchers note the current technical and social limits of AI in operation rooms ^[2], so the human role remains vital.

In a high-stakes field like surgery, machines add safety tools, but surgical technologists’ skills and teamwork stay essential ^{[2] [3]}.