ArticleScientific reports2025
Neuronavigation accuracy of the VOSTARS wearable AR platform vs traditional infrared navigation in a comparative study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Analog-to-Digital Evolution of Neurosurgery: Ethics and Professionalism from Scalpels to Robots.NeuroSci · 2026Article
- Extended Reality in Neurosurgery : Surgical Planning, Navigation, Education, and Patient Communication.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- Navigation-Assisted Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Placement in Pediatric Hydrocephalus: Improved Catheter Positioning and Reduced Revision Rates.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
Abstract
Neuronavigation is integral to modern neurosurgery. Clinical studies demonstrate its effectiveness. The primary tracking modalities in neurosurgical navigation are optical tracking systems (OTS) and electromagnetic tracking systems (EMTS). OTS remains the gold standard due to its accuracy and reliability. However, inherent inaccuracies due to brain deformation, image resolution, tool calibration, and registration errors can impact overall accuracy significantly, which differs from the system-declared accuracy. Augmented reality (AR) technologies solve traditional navigation challenges by integrating virtual information with the patient's anatomy, enhancing the surgeon's focus and cognitive load management. Head-mounted displays (HMDs) offer ergonomic benefits, although most AR-based neuronavigation studies have been limited to proof-of-concept trials. This study aims to evaluate VOSTARS, a novel hybrid video and optical see-through HMD designed for precision surgery, specifically in neurosurgical oncology for targeting supratentorial tumors. Previous in-vitro studies using patient-specific phantoms have shown promising results, with high accuracy in real-to-virtual target visualization and craniotomy trajectory tracing. With this work, we further assessed VOSTARS' targeting accuracy within a realistic neurosurgery clinical workflow and compared its performance to the commercial StealthStation system on a patient-specific phantom. Our results demonstrate that users achieved the same median accuracy, 2 mm (IQR: 1 mm), over 60 measurements with both VOSTARS and the StealthStation with no statistically significant difference between the systems, confirming the non-inferiority of the VOSTARS platform compared to a commercial optical tracking-based surgical navigator.
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.