ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2023
Out-of-Plane Needle Placements Using 3D Augmented Reality Protractor on Smartphone: An Experimental Phantom Study.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Needle Guide on Smartphone for Percutaneous Interventions Using Augmented Reality.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Article
- Smartphone-Based Augmented Reality Applications for Percutaneous Procedures: A Pragmatic Step Toward Clinical Use.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Article
- Smartphone Technology for Applications in Image-Guided Minimally Invasive Interventional Procedures.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Review
- The Feasibility and Accuracy of Holographic Navigation with Laser Crosshair Simulator Registration on a Mixed-Reality Display.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Augmented Reality Applications in Interventional Radiology: Possibilities and Challenges.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy of needle placement using a three-dimensional (3D) augmented reality (AR) protractor on smartphones (AR Puncture). MATERIALS AND
methodsAn AR protractor that can be rotated in three directions against the CT plane with angle guidance lines for smartphones was developed. The protractor center can be adjusted to an entry point by manually moving the smartphone with the protractor center fixed at the center of the screen (Fix-On-Screen) or by image tracking with a printed QR code placed at an entry point (QR-Tracking). Needle placement was performed by viewing a target line in the tangent direction with the Bull's eye method. The needle placement errors placed by four operators in six out-of-plane directions in a phantom using a smartphone (iPhone XR, Apple, Cupertino, CA, USA) were compared with two registration methods.
resultsNo significant difference in the average needle placement error was observed between the Fix-On-Screen and QR-Tracking methods (5.6 ± 1.7 mm vs. 6.1 ± 2.9 mm, p = 0.475). The average procedural time of the Fix-On-Screen method was shorter than that of the QR-Tracking method (71.0 ± 23.9 s vs. 98.4 ± 59.5 s, p = 0.042).
conclusionThe accuracies of out-of-plane needle placements using the 3D AR protractor with the two registration methods were equally high, with short procedure times. In clinical use, the Fix-On-Screen registration method would be more convenient because no additional markers are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36658373What 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.