ReviewCureus2025
Augmented Reality in Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review of Clinical Accuracy, Workflow Efficiency, and Barriers to Adoption.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Augmented reality-enabled image-guided surgical navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery: application beyond screw placement in prone lateral transpsoas interbody fusion-a cadaveric surgical technique study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Bronchovascular Modelling in Sublobar Pulmonary Resection: A Tool for Personalised Thoracic Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Integrating AI Segmentation, Simulated Digital Twins, and Extended Reality into Medical Education: A Narrative Technical Review and Proof-of-Concept Case Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Augmented reality in non-instrumentation minimally invasive spine surgery: a narrative review and future perspectives.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- Predictive Factors of Augmented Reality-Based Clinical Task Performance Among Novice Users: Cross-Sectional Quantitative Study.JMIR XR and spatial computing · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Augmented reality (AR) has emerged as a promising intraoperative navigation tool in spine surgery, particularly for pedicle screw placement, which demands high spatial precision and carries risks of neurovascular injury. AR platforms offer real-time overlays of patient anatomy, aiming to enhance accuracy, reduce radiation exposure, and streamline operative workflow. This narrative review synthesizes the early clinical experiences, efficacy data, and barriers to adoption for AR-assisted navigation in spine surgery. It also explores the role of AR in surgical training, workflow optimization, and future integration into routine practice. A comprehensive search of PubMed and ScienceDirect was conducted for English-language studies from January 2004 to May 2025. Inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed trials evaluating AR in spinal procedures, with outcomes including screw placement accuracy, radiation exposure, operative time, and user experience. Across multiple platforms, including Microsoft HoloLens and Augmedics xVision, AR-assisted navigation demonstrated pedicle screw placement accuracy rates ranging from 93% to 100%, often with reduced fluoroscopy time and improved surgeon ergonomics. Preliminary data suggest utility in complex deformity surgeries and surgical training. However, widespread adoption remains limited by cost, integration challenges, and a lack of large-scale, multicenter trials. AR represents a viable adjunct to current navigation technologies in spine surgery, showing early promise in enhancing precision and efficiency. Broader adoption will require improved validation, standardization of training protocols, and cost-effectiveness data.
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.