ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2026
Manual Registration in AR-Assisted Surgical Navigation: A Comparative Evaluation.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2026. 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 Navigation in Perpendicular Plate of Ethmoid Bone Resection: A Teaching Practice.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
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
purposeThis study evaluates two virtual auxiliary tools, degrees of freedom (DOF) Separation and PinNPivot, to address depth perception limitations and high error rates in manual registration for AR-assisted surgical navigation.
methodsDOF Separation decouples translation and rotation using six independent controls, minimizing cumulative errors. PinNPivot constrains object motion around virtual pins to stabilize rotation. Their effectiveness in AR remains underexplored. Using a hybrid evaluation system (Vuforia and NDI optical tracking), these tools were compared to unassisted manual registration on two patient-specific phantoms, assessing accuracy, task completion time, and NASA-TLX workload scores.
resultsPinNPivot balanced efficiency and accuracy but was prone to initial pin placement errors. DOF Separation achieved the highest accuracy but required longer task times due to iterative adjustments. NASA-TLX results showed higher cognitive and physical workload for assisted methods.
conclusionDOF Separation and PinNPivot improved registration accuracy and efficiency over unassisted manual registration. As software-based tools requiring no additional hardware, they hold promise for enhancing AR-assisted surgical navigation. Future work should validate their clinical applicability in diverse scenarios.
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.