ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2025
Integrated Needle Guide on Smartphone for Percutaneous Interventions Using Augmented Reality.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2025. 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.
- VR-prep improves visualization of medical data in augmented reality on smartphones.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Smartphone-Based Augmented Reality Applications for Percutaneous Procedures: A Pragmatic Step Toward Clinical Use.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to describe the workflow and evaluate the accuracy of a novel smartphone augmented reality (AR) application that includes an integrated needle guide, in a phantom. MATERIALS AND
methodsA smartphone cover with an integrated needle guide was designed and 3D-printed. An AR application for percutaneous application was developed, which integrated a projected needle path based on the rigid needle guide. After planning the needle path using this novel tool, the operator could place the needle through the guide to reach the target. Six lesions with out-of-plane entry points were targeted on an abdominal phantom. Timing and accuracy of needle placements were measured on post-procedural CT both using smartphone AR guidance and with a freehand approach. Results were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum and Pearson's chi-squared tests.
resultsA total of 108 needle placements were performed by 9 physicians with widely varying experience. The median accuracy was 4 mm (IQR 3-6 mm) using the smartphone versus 18 mm (IQR 9-27 mm) for freehand (P < 0.001). Using the smartphone AR application, planning time was 91 s (IQR 71-151 s), and puncture time was 68 s (IQR 57-77 s). There was no difference in accuracy, planning, or puncture times according to experience level when using the AR tool.
conclusionThis smartphone application with an integrated needle guide allows path planning and accurate needle placement on phantoms with real-time angular feedback in less than 3 min. This technology could promote standardization, reduce experience requirements, or provide accurate low-cost guidance in environments without procedural imaging for percutaneous interventions.
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.