ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2025
Smart goggles augmented reality CT-US fusion compared to conventional fusion navigation for percutaneous needle insertion.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual-camera Augmented Reality-Based Navigation System for Precision CT-guided Biopsy and Ablation.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- A Mixed-Reality Navigation Simulator for Training Infiltration Procedures of the Spine: Evaluation in Kambin Triangle Location.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026Article
- Augmented Reality Visualization and Navigation Operationalized in Biopsy of Indeterminate Splenic Mass.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Augmented reality assisted MRI/US fusion for non-rectal fully trans-perineal prostate biopsy.Urology case reports · 2025Article
- 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTargeting accuracy determines outcomes for percutaneous needle interventions. Augmented reality (AR) in IR may improve procedural guidance and facilitate access to complex locations. This study aimed to evaluate percutaneous needle placement accuracy using a goggle-based AR system compared to an ultrasound (US)-based fusion navigation system.
methodsSix interventional radiologists performed 24 independent needle placements in an anthropomorphic phantom (CIRS 057A) in four needle guidance cohorts (n = 6 each): (1) US-based fusion, (2) goggle-based AR with stereoscopically projected anatomy (AR-overlay), (3) goggle AR without the projection (AR-plain), and (4) CT-guided freehand. US-based fusion included US/CT registration with electromagnetic (EM) needle, transducer, and patient tracking. For AR-overlay, US, EM-tracked needle, stereoscopic anatomical structures and targets were superimposed over the phantom. Needle placement accuracy (distance from needle tip to target center), placement time (from skin puncture to final position), and procedure time (time to completion) were measured.
resultsMean needle placement accuracy using US-based fusion, AR-overlay, AR-plain, and freehand was 4.5 ± 1.7 mm, 7.0 ± 4.7 mm, 4.7 ± 1.7 mm, and 9.2 ± 5.8 mm, respectively. AR-plain demonstrated comparable accuracy to US-based fusion (p = 0.7) and AR-overlay (p = 0.06). Excluding two outliers, AR-overlay accuracy became 5.9 ± 2.6 mm. US-based fusion had the highest mean placement time (44.3 ± 27.7 s) compared to all navigation cohorts (p < 0.001). Longest procedure times were recorded with AR-overlay (34 ± 10.2 min) compared to AR-plain (22.7 ± 8.6 min, p = 0.09), US-based fusion (19.5 ± 5.6 min, p = 0.02), and freehand (14.8 ± 1.6 min, p = 0.002).
conclusionGoggle-based AR showed no difference in needle placement accuracy compared to the commercially available US-based fusion navigation platform. Differences in accuracy and procedure times were apparent with different display modes (with/without stereoscopic projections). The AR-based projection of the US and needle trajectory over the body may be a helpful tool to enhance visuospatial orientation. Thus, this study refines the potential role of AR for needle placements, which may serve as a catalyst for informed implementation of AR techniques in IR.
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.