ArticleScientific reports2023
Using augmented reality to guide bone conduction device implantation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extended reality for mapping perforator-based flaps in breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.JPRAS open · 2025Review
- Comparison of augmented reality glasses for the assistive communication support of hearing loss.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Enhancing Surgical Vision: Augmented Reality in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.Journal of medical extended reality · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exact placement of bone conduction implants requires avoidance of critical structures. Existing guidance technologies for intraoperative placement have lacked widespread adoption given accessibility challenges and significant cognitive loading. The purpose of this study is to examine the application of augmented reality (AR) guided surgery on accuracy, duration, and ease on bone conduction implantation. Five surgeons surgically implanted two different types of conduction implants on cadaveric specimens with and without AR projection. Pre- and postoperative computer tomography scans were superimposed to calculate centre-to-centre distances and angular accuracies. Wilcoxon signed-rank testing was used to compare centre-to-centre (C-C) and angular accuracies between the control and experimental arms. Additionally, projection accuracy was derived from the distance between the bony fiducials and the projected fiducials using image guidance coordinates. Both operative time (4.3 ± 1.2 min. vs. 6.6 ± 3.5 min., p = 0.030) and centre-to-centre distances surgery (1.9 ± 1.6 mm vs. 9.0 ± 5.3 mm, p < 0.001) were significantly less in augmented reality guided surgery. The difference in angular accuracy, however, was not significantly different. The overall average distance between the bony fiducial markings and the AR projected fiducials was 1.7 ± 0.6 mm. With direct intraoperative reference, AR-guided surgery enhances bone conduction implant placement while reduces operative time when compared to conventional surgical planning.
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.