ArticleJournal of minimally invasive surgery2025
Article in Journal of minimally invasive surgery, 2025. 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 Visualization and Navigation Operationalized in Biopsy of Indeterminate Splenic Mass.Clinical case reports · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study compared the accuracy, safety, and efficacy of standard-of-care (SOC) ultrasound and augmented reality needle guidance system (ARNGS) used adjunctively for percutaneous needle placement in porcine models. Methods: Four live swine underwent a model creation procedure in which metallic fiducials were percutaneously implanted into the livers (n = 8 per animal; 32 total) and kidneys (n = 4 per animal;16 total) to serve as "lesions." Computed tomography was used to create three-dimensional volumetric images of the anatomy. Four physicians, with limited previous ARNGS experience and blinded to the target locations, positioned needles at the targets using either SOC alone or ARNGS + SOC. Results: No adverse events occurred. Mean target registration error (TRE) was 3.0 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-3.6 mm; n = 22) with SOC (an average needle depth, 8.0 cm) and 2.9 mm (95% CI, 2.2-3.5 mm; n = 24) with ARNGS + SOC (an average needle depth, 7.6 cm). The first-attempt success rate was 39.1% (9/23) for SOC and 41.7% (10/24) for ARNGS + SOC. There was not a significant difference in TRE or first-pass success rate between the two groups ( Conclusion: In a preclinical study, the ARNGS + SOC was as accurate and safe as SOC in needle targeting of implanted targets. A reduction in needle repositioning suggests its potential to streamline procedures and reduce the risk of complications. This novel image fusion method merits further evaluation.
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.