Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33672053›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Combining Augmented Reality and 3D Printing to Improve Surgical Workflows in Orthopedic Oncology: Smartphone Application and Clinical Evaluation.

Rafael Moreta-Martinez, Alicia Pose-Díez-de-la-Lastra, José Antonio Calvo-Haro, Lydia Mediavilla-Santos, Rubén Pérez-Mañanes, Javier Pascau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Branding a New Technological Outlook for Future Orthopaedics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rafael Moreta-MartinezDepartamento de Bioingeniería e Ingeniería Aeroespacial, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 28911 Leganés, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3973-5253
Alicia Pose-Díez-de-la-LastraDepartamento de Bioingeniería e Ingeniería Aeroespacial, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 28911 Leganés, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1802-2884
José Antonio Calvo-HaroInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, 28007 Madrid, Spain.
Lydia Mediavilla-SantosInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, 28007 Madrid, Spain.
Rubén Pérez-MañanesInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, 28007 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4051-2759
Javier PascauDepartamento de Bioingeniería e Ingeniería Aeroespacial, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 28911 Leganés, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1484-731X

Funding

Comunidad de Madrid IND2018/TIC-9753Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Instituto de Salud Carlos III and European Regional Development Fund "Una manera de hacer Europa" PI18/01625
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the last decade, orthopedic oncology has experienced the benefits of computerized medical imaging to reduce human dependency, improving accuracy and clinical outcomes. However, traditional surgical navigation systems do not always adapt properly to this kind of interventions. Augmented reality (AR) and three-dimensional (3D) printing are technologies lately introduced in the surgical environment with promising results. Here we present an innovative solution combining 3D printing and AR in orthopedic oncological surgery. A new surgical workflow is proposed, including 3D printed models and a novel AR-based smartphone application (app). This app can display the patient's anatomy and the tumor's location. A 3D-printed reference marker, designed to fit in a unique position of the affected bone tissue, enables automatic registration. The system has been evaluated in terms of visualization accuracy and usability during the whole surgical workflow. Experiments on six realistic phantoms provided a visualization error below 3 mm. The AR system was tested in two clinical cases during surgical planning, patient communication, and surgical intervention. These results and the positive feedback obtained from surgeons and patients suggest that the combination of AR and 3D printing can improve efficacy, accuracy, and patients' experience.

Indexed as

Augmented RealityImaging, Three-DimensionalSmartphoneSurgery, Computer-AssistedHumansPrinting, Three-DimensionalWorkflow3D printingaugmented realitycomputer-aided interventionsorthopedic oncologysmartphone

Identifiers

PMID33672053
PMCPMC7919470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.