ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Augmented Reality and Intraoperative Navigation in Sinonasal Malignancies: A Preclinical Study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- More than meets the eye: Augmented reality in surgical oncology.Journal of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Augmented reality for orthopedic and maxillofacial oncological surgery: a systematic review focusing on both clinical and technical aspects.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Pooled it
- Diagnostic Challenge of Extranodal Marginal Zone Lymphoma of Extraocular Muscles: A Case Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2026Article
- Article
- Integrating finite element analysis in total hip arthroplasty for childhood hip disorders: Enhancing precision and outcomes.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Article
- Sphenoid sinus hyperpneumatization: anatomical variants, molecular blueprints, and AI-augmented roadmaps for skull base surgery.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
- Does Freehand, Patient-specific Instrumentation or Surgical Navigation Perform Better for Allograft Reconstruction After Tumor Resection? A Preclinical Synthetic Bone Study.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2024Article
- Enhancing Surgical Vision: Augmented Reality in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.Journal of medical extended reality · 2024Review
- Virtual Surgical Planning and Three-Dimensional Models for Precision Sinonasal and Skull Base Surgery.Cancers · 2023Article
- Using augmented reality to guide bone conduction device implantation.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Skull-Base Surgery-A Narrative Review on Current Approaches and Future Developments in Surgical Navigation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Treatment of Skull Base Diseases: A Multidisciplinary Challenge.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Development of an augmented reality guidance system for head and neck cancer resection.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo report the first use of a novel projected augmented reality (AR) system in open sinonasal tumor resections in preclinical models and to compare the AR approach with an advanced intraoperative navigation (IN) system.
methodsFour tumor models were created. Five head and neck surgeons participated in the study performing virtual osteotomies. Unguided, AR, IN, and AR + IN simulations were performed. Statistical comparisons between approaches were obtained. Intratumoral cut rate was the main outcome. The groups were also compared in terms of percentage of intratumoral, close, adequate, and excessive distances from the tumor. Information on a wearable gaze tracker headset and NASA Task Load Index questionnaire results were analyzed as well.
resultsA total of 335 cuts were simulated. Intratumoral cuts were observed in 20.7%, 9.4%, 1.2,% and 0% of the unguided, AR, IN, and AR + IN simulations, respectively (p < 0.0001). The AR was superior than the unguided approach in univariate and multivariate models. The percentage of time looking at the screen during the procedures was 55.5% for the unguided approaches and 0%, 78.5%, and 61.8% in AR, IN, and AR + IN, respectively (p < 0.001). The combined approach significantly reduced the screen time compared with the IN procedure alone.
conclusionWe reported the use of a novel AR system for oncological resections in open sinonasal approaches, with improved margin delineation compared with unguided techniques. AR improved the gaze-toggling drawback of IN. Further refinements of the AR system are needed before translating our experience to clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.