Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37552327›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

Factors affecting augmented reality head-mounted device performance in real OR.

Daniel Suter, Sandro Hodel, Florentin Liebmann, Philipp Fürnstahl, Mazda Farshad

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Navigation surgery in musculoskeletal disorders.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024
    Article
  6. Interspinous and spinolaminar synthetic vertebropexy of the lumbar spine.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    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

5 authors.

Daniel SuterResearch in Orthopedic Computer Science, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Balgrist Campus, Lengghalde 5, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. dapesu@bluewin.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1916-5115
Sandro HodelResearch in Orthopedic Computer Science, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Balgrist Campus, Lengghalde 5, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1521-2527
Florentin LiebmannResearch in Orthopedic Computer Science, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Balgrist Campus, Lengghalde 5, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7722-2267
Philipp FürnstahlResearch in Orthopedic Computer Science, University Hospital Balgrist, University of Zurich, Balgrist Campus, Lengghalde 5, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6484-6206
Mazda FarshadDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7190-1127

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOver the last years, interest and efforts to implement augmented reality (AR) in orthopedic surgery through head-mounted devices (HMD) have increased. However, the majority of experiments were preclinical and within a controlled laboratory environment. The operating room (OR) is a more challenging environment with various confounding factors potentially affecting the performance of an AR-HMD. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of an AR-HMD in a real-life OR setting.

methodsAn established AR application using the HoloLens 2 HMD was tested in an OR and in a laboratory by two users. The accuracy of the hologram overlay, the time to complete the trial, the number of rejected registration attempts, the delay in live overlay of the hologram, and the number of completely failed runs were recorded. Further, different OR setting parameters (light condition, setting up partitions, movement of personnel, and anchor placement) were modified and compared.

resultsTime for full registration was higher with 48 s (IQR 24 s) in the OR versus 33 s (IQR 10 s) in the laboratory setting (p < 0.001). The other investigated parameters didn't differ significantly if an optimal OR setting was used. Within the OR, the strongest influence on performance of the AR-HMD was different light conditions with direct light illumination on the situs being the least favorable.

conclusionAR-HMDs are affected by different OR setups. Standardization measures for better AR-HMD performance include avoiding direct light illumination on the situs, setting up partitions, and minimizing the movement of personnel.

Indexed as

Augmented RealityHumansOperating RoomsAugmented realityHMD performanceHoloLensLaboratory versus operating room environmentSurgical navigation

Identifiers

PMID37552327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.