ArticleJournal of imaging2024
Comparing Different Registration and Visualization Methods for Navigated Common Femoral Arterial Access-A Phantom Model Study Using Mixed Reality.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mixed reality (MxR) enables the projection of virtual three-dimensional objects into the user's field of view via a head-mounted display (HMD). This phantom model study investigated three different workflows for navigated common femoral arterial (CFA) access and compared it to a conventional sonography-guided technique as a control. A total of 160 punctures were performed by 10 operators (5 experts and 5 non-experts). A successful CFA puncture was defined as puncture at the mid-level of the femoral head with the needle tip at the central lumen line in a 0° coronary insertion angle and a 45° sagittal insertion angle. Positional errors were quantified using cone-beam computed tomography following each attempt. Mixed effect modeling revealed that the distance from the needle entry site to the mid-level of the femoral head is significantly shorter for navigated techniques than for the control group. This highlights that three-dimensional visualization could increase the safety of CFA access. However, the navigated workflows are infrastructurally complex with limited usability and are associated with relevant cost. While navigated techniques appear as a potentially beneficial adjunct for safe CFA access, future developments should aim to reduce workflow complexity, avoid optical tracking systems, and offer more pragmatic methods of registration and instrument tracking.
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.