ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025
Validation Study on Iatrogenic Nerve Damage Reduction Using Augmented Reality on Elbow Phantom.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare augmented reality (AR) and classical intraoperative C-arm surgical navigation and evaluate whether head-mounted display improves surgical accuracy in the placement of a rod-like object, such as K-wire, using an anatomically accurate elbow phantom. Participants and Methods: Data were collected between January 10, 2024, and March 15, 2024. We developed an AR system, X-ray simulation system and surgical phantom to test K-wire placement in 3 locations of the distal humerus and proximal ulnar bones. An initial phase with only X-ray as guidance was performed as case control; in later phases, the candidates were allowed to also use the head-mounted display. The evaluation parameters were time, placement angle, number of X-ray images taken, number of attempts, and distance from anatomical structures. Results: In total, 19 physicians participated in the study. We analyzed 193 K-wire placements attempts that resulted in 150 estimated correct positions. This reflects a real-world scenario where multiple placements might be attempted to correctly place a K-wire. Compared with standard procedure, the use of AR resulted in -53.8 seconds in K-wire placement time, -47% of angular error from the K-wire target, -80% X-ray images taken to reach the estimate correct position, and decrease in distance variability of -81%, of the K-wire from anatomical structures of interest. Conclusions: Compared with C-arm, AR navigation improved time, and angle of placement, requiring less X-ray images.
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.