ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024
Accuracy and efficiency of drilling trajectories with augmented reality versus conventional navigation randomized crossover trial.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of collaborative robot-assisted cutting method for iliac crest flap raising: Randomized crossover trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Mixed reality combined with surgical navigation versus conventional navigation for resection of oral and maxillofacial tumors: a comparative study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Usability Study of Augmented Reality Visualization Modalities on Localization Accuracy in the Head and Neck: Randomized Crossover Trial.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- 3D-printed navigation templates combined with multimodal imaging assist low-grade glioma surgery: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional navigation systems (CNS) in surgery require strong spatial cognitive abilities and hand-eye coordination. Augmented Reality Navigation Systems (ARNS) provide 3D guidance and may overcome these challenges, but their accuracy and efficiency compared to CNS have not been systematically evaluated. In this randomized crossover study with 36 participants from different professional backgrounds (surgeons, students, engineers), drilling accuracy, time and perceived workload were evaluated using ARNS and CNS. For the first time, this study provides compelling evidence that ARNS and CNS have comparable accuracy in translational error. Differences in angle and depth error with ARNS were likely due to limited stereoscopic vision, hardware limitations, and design. Despite this, ARNS was preferred by most participants, including surgeons with prior navigation experience, and demonstrated a significantly better overall user experience. Depending on accuracy requirements, ARNS could serve as a viable alternative to CNS for guided drilling, with potential for future optimization.
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.