Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40947929›Full record

ArticleJournal of minimally invasive surgery2025

Sanjit Datta, Robert F Short, Jeffrey W Milsom, Charles Martin Iii, Gaurav Gadodia, Gabrielle Stefy Bailey, Crew Weunski, Michael Evans, Bradley B Pua

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sanjit DattaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Interventional Radiology Section, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5537-6830
Robert F ShortDivision of Interventional Radiology, Dayton Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dayton, OH, USA.
Jeffrey W MilsomDepartment of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4733-5305
Charles Martin IiiSection of Interventional Radiology, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9120-1670
Gaurav GadodiaVIR Chicago, Hinsdale, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2654-970X
Gabrielle Stefy BaileyMediView XR, Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1607-6683
Crew WeunskiMediView XR, Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2559-1076
Michael EvansMediView XR, Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9545-4610
Bradley B PuaDivision of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2837-8166

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Augmented realityComputed tomography angiographyInterventional radiographyNeedle biopsyUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID40947929
PMCPMC12439044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.