Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36248169›Full record

ReviewBrain & spine2022

Visualization, navigation, augmentation. The ever-changing perspective of the neurosurgeon.

A Boaro, F Moscolo, A Feletti, G M V Polizzi, S Nunes, F Siddi, M L D Broekman, F Sala

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain & spine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

8 authors.

A BoaroSection of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Italy.
F MoscoloSection of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Italy.
A FelettiSection of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Italy.
G M V PolizziSection of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Italy.
S NunesSection of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Italy.
F SiddiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands.
M L D BroekmanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands.
F SalaSection of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The evolution of neurosurgery coincides with the evolution of visualization and navigation. Augmented reality technologies, with their ability to bring digital information into the real environment, have the potential to provide a new, revolutionary perspective to the neurosurgeon. Research question: To provide an overview on the historical and technical aspects of visualization and navigation in neurosurgery, and to provide a systematic review on augmented reality (AR) applications in neurosurgery. Material and methods: We provided an overview on the main historical milestones and technical features of visualization and navigation tools in neurosurgery. We systematically searched PubMed and Scopus databases for AR applications in neurosurgery and specifically discussed their relationship with current visualization and navigation systems, as well as main limitations. Results: The evolution of visualization in neurosurgery is embodied by four magnification systems: surgical loupes, endoscope, surgical microscope and more recently the exoscope, each presenting independent features in terms of magnification capabilities, eye-hand coordination and the possibility to implement additional functions. In regard to navigation, two independent systems have been developed: the frame-based and the frame-less systems. The most frequent application setting for AR is brain surgery (71.6%), specifically neuro-oncology (36.2%) and microscope-based (29.2%), even though in the majority of cases AR applications presented their own visualization supports (66%). Discussion and conclusions: The evolution of visualization and navigation in neurosurgery allowed for the development of more precise instruments; the development and clinical validation of AR applications, have the potential to be the next breakthrough, making surgeries safer, as well as improving surgical experience and reducing costs.

Indexed as

Augmented neurosurgeryAugmented realityAugmented surgeryHistory of neurosurgeryInnovation in neurosurgery

Identifiers

PMID36248169
PMCPMC9560703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.