Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34006234›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021

Augmented reality in the operating room: a clinical feasibility study.

Cyrill Dennler, David E Bauer, Anne-Gita Scheibler, José Spirig, Tobias Götschi, Philipp Fürnstahl, Mazda Farshad

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Perception-first digital twin for augmented reality microsurgery.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cyrill DennlerSpine Division, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zürich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
David E BauerSpine Division, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zürich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. dudi.bauer@gmail.com.
Anne-Gita ScheiblerLaboratory for biomechanics, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zürich, Forchstrasse 340, Zurich, 8008, Switzerland.
José SpirigSpine Division, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zürich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Tobias GötschiComputer Assisted Research and Development Group, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zürich, Forchstrasse 340, Zurich, 8008, Switzerland.
Philipp FürnstahlComputer Assisted Research and Development Group, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zürich, Forchstrasse 340, Zurich, 8008, Switzerland.
Mazda FarshadSpine Division, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zürich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
University of Zurich · CHUniversitätsklinik Balgrist · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAugmented Reality (AR) is a rapidly emerging technology finding growing acceptance and application in different fields of surgery. Various studies have been performed evaluating the precision and accuracy of AR guided navigation. This study investigates the feasibility of a commercially available AR head mounted device during orthopedic surgery.

methodsThirteen orthopedic surgeons from a Swiss university clinic performed 25 orthopedic surgical procedures wearing a holographic AR headset (HoloLens, Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) providing complementary three-dimensional, patient specific anatomic information. The surgeon's experience of using the device during surgery was recorded using a standardized 58-item questionnaire grading different aspects on a 100-point scale with anchor statements.

resultsSurgeons were generally satisfied with image quality (85 ± 17 points) and accuracy of the virtual objects (84 ± 19 point). Wearing the AR device was rated as fairly comfortable (79 ± 13 points). Functionality of voice commands (68 ± 20 points) and gestures (66 ± 20 points) provided less favorable results. The greatest potential in the use of the AR device was found for surgical correction of deformities (87 ± 15 points). Overall, surgeons were satisfied with the application of this novel technology (78 ± 20 points) and future access to it was demanded (75 ± 22 points).

conclusionAR is a rapidly evolving technology with large potential in different surgical settings, offering the opportunity to provide a compact, low cost alternative requiring a minimum of infrastructure compared to conventional navigation systems. While surgeons where generally satisfied with image quality of the here tested head mounted AR device, some technical and ergonomic shortcomings were pointed out. This study serves as a proof of concept for the use of an AR head mounted device in a real-world sterile setting in orthopedic surgery.

Indexed as

Augmented RealitySurgery, Computer-AssistedFeasibility StudiesHumansOperating RoomsAugmented realityHololensNavigationOrthopedicsOsteotomy

Identifiers

PMID34006234
PMCPMC8132365
OpenAlexW3160700331

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.