ReviewJPRAS open2025
The use of extended reality in microsurgical free flap planning - A systematic review.
Review in JPRAS open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dissecting free tissue flaps can be challenging and time-consuming. Imaging technologies are typically used to assist with preoperative planning. However, conventional methods have limitations that could potentially be overcome by extended reality technologies. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current use of extended reality (XR) in preoperative planning for microsurgical free flaps and assess its effectiveness as a tool in this context. Methods: The systematic review was conducted following the preferred reporting items of systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Articles identified through the PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were screened based on titles and abstracts, and relevant articles were assessed in full text. Inclusion criteria were: use of XR for vascular visualization in plastic and reconstructive surgery, reported workflow, accuracy, operative times, the surgeon's opinion, or complications. Exclusion criteria were: unavailability of full text, non-English, non-human, or other review articles. Quality assessment was performed using center for evidence-based medicine level of evidence and Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Results: Overall, 7 articles on virtual reality and 26 articles on augmented reality in plastic and reconstructive surgical procedures were identified. Virtual reality demonstrated better visualization of patient-specific anatomy and was more time efficient than CT angiography. Augmented reality was found to be more accurate and time efficient than Doppler ultrasound. However, successful XR implementation necessitates a well-designed workflow. The results are limited by the designs of the included studies and level of evidence they represent. Conclusion: XR technologies show promise in preoperative planning of microsurgical free flaps. Standardized outcome measurements and prospective, comparative studies are essential for a comprehensive understanding of the clinical value of XR-based preoperative planning.
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.