ReviewArchives of dermatological research2024
Exploring the potential role for extended reality in Mohs micrographic surgery.
Review in Archives of dermatological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transforming surgical ward rounds: constructivist pedagogy, structured models, and intelligent technologies.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Telerobotic surgery: a comprehensive two-decade evolution and the integration of emerging technologies.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Review
- A Psychosocial Exploration of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Apps in Cosmetic Procedures.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2024Review
- Assessing the knowledge, attitude and perception of Extended Reality (XR) technology in Pakistan's Healthcare community in an era of Artificial Intelligence.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a cornerstone of dermatological practice. Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technology, initially used for entertainment, have entered healthcare, offering real-time data overlaying a surgeon's view. This paper explores potential applications of VR and AR in MMS, emphasizing their advantages and limitations. We aim to identify research gaps to facilitate innovation in dermatological surgery. We conducted a PubMed search using the following: "augmented reality" OR "virtual reality" AND "Mohs" or "augmented reality" OR "virtual reality" AND "surgery." Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed articles in English discussing these technologies in medical settings. We excluded non-peer-reviewed sources, non-English articles, and those not addressing these technologies in a medical context. VR alleviates patient anxiety and enhances patient satisfaction while serving as an educational tool. It also aids physicians by providing realistic surgical simulations. On the other hand, AR assists in real-time lesion analysis, optimizing incision planning, and refining margin control during surgery. Both of these technologies offer remote guidance for trainee residents, enabling real-time learning and oversight and facilitating synchronous teleconsultations. These technologies may transform dermatologic surgery, making it more accessible and efficient. However, further research is needed to validate their effectiveness, address potential challenges, and optimize seamless integration. All in all, AR and VR enhance real-world environments with digital data, offering real-time surgical guidance and medical insights. By exploring the potential integration of these technologies in MMS, our study identifies avenues for further research to thoroughly understand the role of these technologies to redefine dermatologic surgery, elevating precision, surgical outcomes, and patient experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38194123What 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.