SynthesisJournal of surgical oncology2024
More than meets the eye: Augmented reality in surgical oncology.
Synthesis in Journal of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Augmented and virtual reality in surgical practice: a review of applications in visualization, training, and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- The evolution of digital surgery and the role of the surgeon.JPRAS open · 2025Review
- Benchmarking complete-to-partial point cloud registration techniques for laparoscopic surgery.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 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
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesIn the field of surgical oncology, there has been a desire for innovative techniques to improve tumor visualization, resection, and patient outcomes. Augmented reality (AR) technology superimposes digital content onto the real-world environment, enhancing the user's experience by blending digital and physical elements. A thorough examination of AR technology in surgical oncology has yet to be performed.
methodsA scoping review of intraoperative AR in surgical oncology was conducted according to the guidelines and recommendations of The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyzes Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) framework. All original articles examining the use of intraoperative AR during surgical management of cancer were included. Exclusion criteria included virtual reality applications only, preoperative use only, fluorescence, AR not specific to surgical oncology, and study design (reviews, commentaries, abstracts).
resultsA total of 2735 articles were identified of which 83 were included. Most studies (52) were performed on animals or phantom models, while the remaining included patients. A total of 1112 intraoperative AR surgical cases were performed across the studies. The most common anatomic site was brain (20 articles), followed by liver (16), renal (9), and head and neck (8). AR was most often used for intraoperative navigation or anatomic visualization of tumors or critical structures but was also used to identify osteotomy or craniotomy planes.
conclusionsAR technology has been applied across the field of surgical oncology to aid in localization and resection of tumors.
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.