ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
Evaluation of an augmented reality navigational guidance platform for percutaneous procedures in a cadaver model.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Augmented Reality Visualization and Navigation Operationalized in Biopsy of Indeterminate Splenic Mass.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Augmented Reality for Surgical Navigation: A Review of Advanced Needle Guidance Systems for Percutaneous Tumor Ablation.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Review
- Phantom study of augmented reality framework to assist epicardial punctures.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study is to review the accuracy of an augmented reality navigational guidance system designed to facilitate improved visualization, guidance, and accuracy during percutaneous needle-based procedures including biopsies and ablations. Approach: Using the HoloLens 2, the system registers and projects 3D CT-based models of segmented anatomy along with live ultrasound, fused with electromagnetically tracked instruments including ultrasound probes and needles, giving the operator comprehensive stereoscopic visualization for intraoperative planning and navigation during procedures.Tracked needles were guided to targets implanted in a cadaveric model using the system. Image fusion registration error, the multimodality error measured as the post-registration distance between a corresponding point measured in the stereoscopic CT and tracked ultrasound coordinate systems, and target registration error, the Euclidean distance between needle tip and target after needle placement, were measured as registration and targeting accuracy metrics. A t-distribution was used for statistical analysis. Results: Three operators performed 36 total needle passes, 18 to measure image fusion registration error and 18 to measure target registration error on four targets. The average depth of each needle pass was 8.4 cm from skin to target center. Mean IFRE was 4.4 mm ( Conclusions: The study demonstrated high registration and targeting accuracy of this AR navigational guidance system in percutaneous, needle-based procedures. This suggests the ability to facilitate improved clinical performance in percutaneous procedures such as ablations and biopsies.
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.