ArticleHealthcare technology letters2024
BREAST+: An augmented reality interface that speeds up perforator marking for DIEAP flap reconstruction surgery.
Article in Healthcare technology letters, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pushing the boundaries in autologous breast reconstruction: innovations from imaging to artificial intelligence.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- BREAST+: An augmented reality interface that speeds up perforator marking for DIEAP flap reconstruction surgery.Healthcare technology letters · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap reconstruction is a common technique for breast reconstruction surgery in cancer patients. Preoperative planning typically depends on radiological reports and 2D images to help surgeons locate abdominal perforator vessels before surgery. Here, BREAST+, an augmented reality interface for the HoloLens 2, designed to facilitate accurate marking of perforator locations on the patients' skin and to seamlessly access relevant clinical data in the operating room is proposed. The system is evaluated in a controlled setting by conducting a user study with 27 medical students and 2 breast surgeons. Quantitative (marking error, task completion time, and number of task repetitions) and qualitative (perceived usability, perceived workload, user preference and user satisfaction) data are collected to assess BREAST+ performance during perforator marking. The average time taken to mark each perforator is 7.7 ± 6.5 s, with an average absolute error of 6.8 ± 2.6 mm and an estimated average deviation of 3.6 ± 1.4 mm. The results revealed non-negligeable biases in user estimates likely attributed to depth perception inaccuracies. Still, the study concluded that BREAST+ is both accurate and considerably more efficient (∼6 times faster) when compared to the conventional perforator marking approach.
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.