Article3D printing in medicine2025
Microsoft HoloLens 2 vs. tablet-based augmented reality and 3D printing for fronto-orbital reconstruction of craniosynostosis: a case study.
Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Augmented Reality in Navigated Surgery: A Systematic Review of Clinical Accuracy and System Performance.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundCraniosynostosis is a congenital condition characterized by the premature fusion of cranial sutures, leading to potential complications such as abnormal skull growth, increased intracranial pressure, and cognitive delays. Traditionally, open cranial vault reconstruction (OCVR) has been used to treat this condition. However, it is highly subjective and greatly dependent on the surgeon's expertise, which can lead to residual deformities and the need for reoperation. Effective preoperative planning can greatly improve surgical outcomes, although the major challenge is accurately translating this plan into the clinical setting. Recently, augmented reality (AR) and 3D printing have emerged as promising technologies to facilitate this endeavor. In this work, we propose three alternatives, leveraging these technologies, to guide the precise repositioning of remodeled bone fragments in the patient.
methodsThe three guidance methods are AR on a tablet, AR with Microsoft HoloLens 2, and 3D-printed spacers. The accuracy of each method was assessed by measuring the deviation of each bone fragment from the virtual surgical plan (VSP) in a simulated environment using 3D-printed phantoms based on a 14-month-old boy with trigonocephaly. The same assessment was also performed during his actual surgery.
resultsAll three guidance methods demonstrated similar levels of accuracy, with mean placement errors below 1 mm in all cases. The AR systems allowed for real-time adjustments, enhancing precision. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences in error rates between the different methods or attempts.
conclusionsIntegrating AR and 3D printing into craniosynostosis surgery holds great potential for improving OCVR. While 3D-printed spacers are useful when digital technologies are unavailable, AR-based methods provide more comprehensive guidance. Nevertheless, our study suggests that the choice may depend more on the specific clinical context, user-specific skills, and available resources rather than on a clear superiority of one method over the others.
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.