ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2024
Performance Comparison of Augmented Reality Versus Ultrasound Guidance for Puncture: A Phantom Study.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrated Needle Guide on Smartphone for Percutaneous Interventions Using Augmented Reality.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Article
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
purposeAugmented reality (AR) is an innovative approach that could assist percutaneous procedures; by directly seeing "through" a phantom, targeting a lesion might be more intuitive than using ultrasound (US). The objective of this study was to compare the performance of experienced interventional radiologists and operators untrained in soft tissue lesion puncture using AR guidance and standard US guidance. MATERIAL AND
methodsThree trained interventional radiologists with 5-10 years of experience and three untrained operators performed punctures of five targets in an abdominal phantom, with US guidance and AR guidance. Correct targeting, accuracy (defined as the Euclidean distance between the tip and the center of the target), planning time, and puncture time were documented.
resultsAccuracy was higher for the trained group than the untrained group using US guidance (1 mm versus 4 mm, p = 0.001), but not when using AR guidance (4 mm vs. 4 mm, p = 0.76). All operators combined, no significant difference was found concerning accuracy between US and AR guidance (2 mm vs. 4 mm, p = 0.09), but planning time and puncture time were significantly shorter using AR (respectively, 15.1 s vs. 74 s, p < 0.001; 16.1 s vs. 59 s; p < 0.001).
conclusionUntrained and trained operators obtained comparable accuracy in percutaneous punctures when using AR guidance whereas US performance was better in the experienced group. All operators together, accuracy was similar between US and AR guidance, but shorter planning time, puncture time were found for AR guidance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38710797What 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.