Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39523276›Full record

ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2024

Augmented Reality in Neurosurgery.

Jesse A M van Doormaal, Tristan P C van Doormaal

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jesse A M van DoormaalDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. j.a.m.vandoormaal-2@umcutrecht.nl.
Tristan P C van DoormaalDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Augmented Reality (AR) involves superimposing digital content onto the real environment. AR has evolved into a viable tool in neurosurgery, enhancing intraoperative navigation, medical education and surgical training by integrating anatomical data with the real world. Neurosurgical AR relies on several key techniques to be successful, which includes image segmentation, model rendering, AR projection, and image-to-patient registration. For each of these technical components, different solutions exist, with each having their own advantages and limitations.Intraoperative AR applications cover diverse neurosurgical disciplines including vascular, oncological, spinal, and functional surgeries. Preliminary studies indicate that AR may improve the understanding of complex anatomical structures and offer sufficient accuracy for use as a navigational tool. Additionally, AR shows promise in enhancing surgical training and patient education through interactive 3D models, aiding in the comprehension of intricate anatomical details. Despite its potential, the widespread adoption of AR in clinical settings depends on overcoming technical limitations and validating its clinical efficacy.

Indexed as

Augmented RealityNeurosurgical ProceduresHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalNeuronavigationNeurosurgerySurgery, Computer-AssistedAugmented realityComputer visionImage segmentationImage-to-patient registrationMedical educationModel renderingNeuronavigationSpatial computingSurgical training

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.