ArticleJournal of neurointerventional surgery2023
Accuracy of augmented reality-guided drainage versus stereotactic and conventional puncture in an intracerebral hemorrhage phantom model.
Article in Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optical See-Through and Video See-Through Head-Mounted Displays for Percutaneous Biopsies: A Comparative Phantom Study.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of augmented reality visualization approaches in minimally invasive neurosurgery guidance: 2D, tablet, HMD and autostereoscopic displays.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Neuronavigation accuracy of the VOSTARS wearable AR platform vs traditional infrared navigation in a comparative study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Augmented reality for external ventricular drain placement: Model alignment and integration software.Surgical neurology international · 2025Article
- Is Overlain Display a Right Choice for AR Navigation? A Qualitative Study of Head-Mounted Augmented Reality Surgical Navigation on Accuracy for Large-Scale Clinical Deployment.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Evaluation Metrics for Augmented Reality in Neurosurgical Preoperative Planning, Surgical Navigation, and Surgical Treatment Guidance: A Systematic Review.Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2023Article
- Application of Mixed Reality to Ultrasound-guided Femoral Arterial Cannulation During Real-time Practice in Cardiac Interventions.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2023Article
- Functional Outcome Analysis of Stereotactic Catheter Aspiration for Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Early or Late Hematoma Evacuation?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Minimally-invasive bedside catheter haematoma aspiration followed by local thrombolysis in spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage: a retrospective single-center study.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive intracranial drain placement is a common neurosurgical emergency procedure in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We aimed to retrospectively investigate the accuracy of conventional freehand (bedside) hemorrhage drain placement and to prospectively compare the accuracy of augmented/mixed reality-guided (AR) versus frame-based stereotaxy-guided (STX) and freehand drain placement in a phantom model.
methodsA retrospective, single-center analysis evaluated the accuracy of drain placement in 73 consecutive ICH with a visual rating of postinterventional CT data. In a head phantom with a simulated deep ICH, five neurosurgeons performed four punctures for each technique: STX, AR, and the freehand technique. The Euclidean distance to the target point and the lateral deviation of the achieved trajectory from the planned trajectory at target point level were compared between the three methods.
resultsAnalysis of the clinical cases revealed an optimal drainage position in only 46/73 (63%). Correction of the drain was necessary in 23/73 cases (32%). In the phantom study, accuracy of AR was significantly higher than the freehand method (P<0.001 for both Euclidean and lateral distances). The Euclidean distance using AR (median 3 mm) was close to that using STX (median 1.95 mm; P=0.023).
conclusionsWe demonstrated that the accuracy of the freehand technique was low and that subsequent position correction was common. In a phantom model, AR drainage placement was significantly more precise than the freehand method. AR has great potential to increase precision of emergency intracranial punctures in a bedside setting.
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.