ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2024
A usability analysis of augmented reality and haptics for surgical planning.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review on Haptic Feedback in Medical Robotics: Technologies, Applications, Clinical Translation, and an Information-Oriented Perspective.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Before hands disappear: Effect of early warning visual feedback method for hand tracking failures in virtual reality.PloS one · 2025Article
- Design and Evaluation of Augmented Reality-Enhanced Robotic System for Epidural Interventions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeProper visualization and interaction with complex anatomical data can improve understanding, allowing for more intuitive surgical planning. The goal of our work was to study what the most intuitive yet practical platforms for interacting with 3D medical data are in the context of surgical planning.
methodsWe compared planning using a monitor and mouse, a monitor with a haptic device, and an augmented reality (AR) head-mounted display which uses a gesture-based interaction. To determine the most intuitive system, two user studies, one with novices and one with experts, were conducted. The studies involved planning of three scenarios: (1) heart valve repair, (2) hip tumor resection, and (3) pedicle screw placement. Task completion time, NASA Task Load Index and system-specific questionnaires were used for the evaluation.
resultsBoth novices and experts preferred the AR system for pedicle screw placement. Novices preferred the haptic system for hip tumor planning, while experts preferred the mouse and keyboard. In the case of heart valve planning, novices preferred the AR system but there was no clear preference for experts. Both groups reported that AR provides the best spatial depth perception.
conclusionThe results of the user studies suggest that different surgical cases may benefit from varying interaction and visualization methods. For example, for planning surgeries with implants and instrumentations, mixed reality could provide better 3D spatial perception, whereas using landmarks for delineating specific targets may be more effective using a traditional 2D interface.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38942947What 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.