Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36607711›Full record

ReviewJMIR serious games2023

Mixed Reality in Modern Surgical and Interventional Practice: Narrative Review of the Literature.

Mats T Vervoorn, Maaike Wulfse, Tristan P C Van Doormaal, Jelle P Ruurda, Niels P Van der Kaaij, Linda M De Heer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR serious games, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Integration of high-resolution mixed reality models into resident training.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Usefulness of Mixed Reality in Surgical Treatment: Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Mats T Vervoorn *University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2350-5573
Maaike Wulfse *University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1228-6283
Tristan P C Van DoormaalUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6299-3859
Jelle P RuurdaUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6584-1677
Niels P Van der KaaijUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3669-5209
Linda M De HeerUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4815-8715

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMixed reality (MR) and its potential applications have gained increasing interest within the medical community over the recent years. The ability to integrate virtual objects into a real-world environment within a single video-see-through display is a topic that sparks imagination. Given these characteristics, MR could facilitate preoperative and preinterventional planning, provide intraoperative and intrainterventional guidance, and aid in education and training, thereby improving the skills and merits of surgeons and residents alike.

objectiveIn this narrative review, we provide a broad overview of the different applications of MR within the entire spectrum of surgical and interventional practice and elucidate on potential future directions.

methodsA targeted literature search within the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed regarding the application of MR within surgical and interventional practice. Studies were included if they met the criteria for technological readiness level 5, and as such, had to be validated in a relevant environment.

resultsA total of 57 studies were included and divided into studies regarding preoperative and interventional planning, intraoperative and interventional guidance, as well as training and education.

conclusionsThe overall experience with MR is positive. The main benefits of MR seem to be related to improved efficiency. Limitations primarily seem to be related to constraints associated with head-mounted display. Future directions should be aimed at improving head-mounted display technology as well as incorporation of MR within surgical microscopes, robots, and design of trials to prove superiority.

Indexed as

educationextended realityinterventionmixed realitysurgery

Identifiers

PMID36607711
PMCPMC9947976

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.