ArticleWorld journal of urology2022
Utilizing head-mounted eye trackers to analyze patterns and decision-making strategies of 3D virtual modelling platform (IRIS
Article in World journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The clinical application value of mixed reality guidance in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- The contribution of personalized video feedback to robotic partial nephrectomy training in realistic 3D tumor kidney models: design, production and implementation.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- A multifactorial evaluation of objective performance indicators and video analysis in the context of case complexity and clinical outcomes in robotic-assisted cholecystectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Patient specific simulation in urology: where are we now and what does the future look like?World journal of urology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIRIS
methodsSeven surgeons randomly reviewed IRIS and CT images of 9 patients with renal masses [5 high complexity (RENAL score ≥ 8), 4 low complexity (≤ 7)]. Surgeons answered a series of questions regarding patient anatomy, perceived difficulty (/100), confidence (/100), and surgical plan. Eye tracking metrics (mean pupil diameter, number of fixations, and gaze duration) were collected.
resultsSurgeons spent significantly less time interpreting data from IRIS than CT scans (- 67.1 s, p < 0.01) and had higher inter-rater agreement of surgical approach after viewing IRIS (α = 0.16-0.34). After viewing IRIS, surgical plans although not statistically significant demonstrated a greater tendency towards a more selective ischemia approaches which positively correlated with improved identification of vascular anatomy. Planned surgical approach changed in 22/59 of the cases. Compared to viewing the CT scan, left and right mean pupil diameter and number/duration of fixations were significantly lower when using IRIS (p < 0.01, p < 0.01, p = 0.42, p < 0.01, respectively), indicating interpreting information from IRIS required less mental effort despite under-utilizing its interactive features.
conclusionsSurgeons extrapolated more detailed information in less time with less mental effort using IRIS than CT scans and proposed surgical approaches with potential to enhanced surgical outcomes.
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.