Trial reportOrthopaedic surgery2025
Augmented Reality Navigation System Enhances the Accuracy of Spinal Surgery Pedicle Screw Placement: A Randomized, Multicenter, Parallel-Controlled Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A standardized workflow for precision liver resection: systematic review of integrated 3D visualization, indocyanine green fluorescence, and augmented reality navigation.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- An immersive mixed reality surgical self-training system for precise pedicle screw placement: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Apple Vision Pro-Enabled Endoscopic Endonasal Approach for Pituitary Adenoma Resection: First In-Human Spatial Computing Skull Base Neurosurgery Case Report.Journal of neurological surgery reports · 2026Article
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Orthopedic Practice: Modeling Attitudes and Intentions to Use AI.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a mixed reality navigation simulator for training of minimally invasive interventions of the spine: a pilot didactic plan.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Bronchovascular Modelling in Sublobar Pulmonary Resection: A Tool for Personalised Thoracic Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Augmented Reality in Navigated Surgery: A Systematic Review of Clinical Accuracy and System Performance.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
- Comparative study of ultrasound shape completion and CBCT-based AR workflows for spinal needle interventions.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Extended Reality in Neurosurgery : Surgical Planning, Navigation, Education, and Patient Communication.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- Intraoperative Navigation in Cervical Spine Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A Mixed-Reality Navigation Simulator for Training Infiltration Procedures of the Spine: Evaluation in Kambin Triangle Location.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026Article
- Augmented and virtual reality in surgical practice: a review of applications in visualization, training, and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Accuracy and effectiveness of thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement with a mixed reality head mounted device: first clinical experience and results.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- The digital evolution of surgical planning: a systematic review of immersive and interactive technologies.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Incorporating mixed reality head mounted display technology in biportal endoscopic lumbar surgery: an early feasibility study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Visualization-driven digital technologies in oncology: current applications, technological advances, and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Feasibility of Augmented Reality in Orthopedic Trauma Care: A Narrative Review of Current Applications.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe pedicle screw insertion technique has evolved significantly, and despite the challenges of precise placement, advancements like AR-based surgical navigation systems now offer enhanced accuracy and safety in spinal surgery by integrating real-time, high-resolution imaging with virtual models to aid surgeons. This study aims to evaluate the differences in accuracy between novel AR-guided pedicle screw insertion and conventional surgery techniques.
methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted from March 2019 to December 2023 to compare the efficacy of AR-guided pedicle screw fixation with conventional freehand surgery using CT guidance. The study included 150 patients, aged 18-75, with 75 patients in each group. The total number of pedicle screws planned for the clinical trial placement was 351 and 348 in the experimental and control groups. The safety and efficacy of the procedures were evaluated by assessing screw placement accuracy and complication rates.
resultsIn the full analysis set (FAS) analysis, the difference in the excellent and good rates of screw placement (experimental group - control group) and 95% confidence interval was 6.3% [3.0%-9.8%], with a p value of 0.0003 for the superiority test. In the FAS sensitivity analysis, the success rate was 98.0% (344 out of 351) in the experimental group and 91.7% (319 out of 348) in the control group, with a difference and 95% confidence interval of 6.3% [2.9% and 9.8%, respectively]. In the per-protocol set (PPS) analysis, the difference in the excellent and good rates of screw placement between the experimental and control groups, and the 95% confidence interval was 6.4% [3.3%-9.5%], with a p value of 0.0001 for the superiority test. In the actual treatment set (ATS) analysis, the excellent and good rates of screw placement were 99.1% in the experimental group and 91.7% in the control group. The difference in the excellent and good rates of screw placement (experimental group - control group) and 95% confidence interval was 7.3% [4.1%-10.6%], with a p value of < 0.0001 for the superiority test.
conclusionsThe AR surgical navigation system can improve the accuracy of pedicle screw implantation and provide precise guidance for surgeons during pedicle screw insertion.
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.