ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2025
A bibliometric analysis of augmented reality and mixed reality applied in minimally invasive surgery.
Review in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Suggestions and insights from 28 bibliometric studies in the Journal of Robotic Surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Mixed reality assisted target localization for transcranial magnetic stimulation navigation: a feasibility study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Augmented intelligence in "robotic" liver surgery: Integrating augmented reality and artificial intelligence for real-time navigation and margin precision.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Review
- Real-time deep learning for tumor segmentation and tool tracking: development and validation of an AI navigation system in vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is integral to modern surgical practices, offering several advantages over traditional open surgery. The emergence of augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) technologies notably improved the surgical accuracy and safety of MIS. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of AR and MR applications in MIS, identifying key trends and assessing the overall impact of these technologies on surgical practices. We systematically searched the WoSCC, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase for literature published between January 1, 1982, and August 14, 2024, using the keywords AR, MR and MIS. The search identified 5162 publications, of which 310 papers and reviews met the screening criteria. Bibliometric techniques were employed to analyze publication trends, country/region and institution participation, authorship, journal distribution, citation patterns and research hotspots. The annual publication rate has shown a steady upward trend since 2006, peaking at 50 publications in 2022. The United States, China and Germany were the leading countries. Top institutions included Johns Hopkins University and Imperial College London. The International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery had the highest publication count, while Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques received the most citations. Key research hotspots focused on spinal and liver surgeries, particularly in computer-assisted surgery and image-guided techniques, with advancements in integrating AR and MR with robotic systems, 3D printing, and machine learning. AR and MR technologies are increasingly used in MIS, especially in the enhancement of surgical navigation systems. This study provides insights for future research directions and practical applications in MIS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40232554What 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.