ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2023
Accuracy Evaluation Trial of Mixed Reality-Guided Spinal Puncture Technology.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 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.
- Article
- Extended Reality for Neuraxial Procedures: A Scoping Review.Journal of medical extended reality · 2024Article
- Comparison of Mixed Reality-Assisted Spinal Puncture with Landmark-Guided Spinal Puncture by Novice Practitioners: A Pilot Study.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of mixed reality (MR)-guided visualization technology for spinal puncture (MRsp). Methods: MRsp involved the following three steps: 1. Lumbar spine computed tomography (CT) data were obtained to reconstruct virtual 3D images, which were imported into a HoloLens (2nd gen). 2. The patented MR system quickly recognized the spatial orientation and superimposed the virtual image over the real spine in the HoloLens. 3. The operator performed the spinal puncture with structural information provided by the virtual image. A posture fixation cushion was used to keep the subjects' lateral decubitus position consistent. 12 subjects were recruited to verify the setup error and the registration error. The setup error was calculated using the first two CT scans and measuring the displacement of two location markers. The projection points of the upper edge of the L3 spinous process (L3↑), the lower edge of the L3 spinous process (L3↓), and the lower edge of the L4 spinous process (L4↓) in the virtual image were positioned and marked on the skin as the registration markers. A third CT scan was performed to determine the registration error by measuring the displacement between the three registration markers and the corresponding real spinous process edges. Results: The setup errors in the position of the cranial location marker between CT scans along the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), and superior-inferior (SI) axes of the CT bed measured 0.09 ± 0.06 cm, 0.30 ± 0.28 cm, and 0.22 ± 0.12 cm, respectively, while those of the position of the caudal location marker measured 0.08 ± 0.06 cm, 0.29 ± 0.18 cm, and 0.18 ± 0.10 cm, respectively. The registration errors between the three registration markers and the subject's real L3↑, L3↓, and L4↓ were 0.11 ± 0.09 cm, 0.15 ± 0.13 cm, and 0.13 ± 0.10 cm, respectively, in the SI direction. Conclusion: This MR-guided visualization technology for spinal puncture can accurately and quickly superimpose the reconstructed 3D CT images over a real human spine.
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.