ArticleSurgical neurology international2025
Application of a head-mounted augmented reality display for visualization in convexity meningioma resection: A technical note.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Head-mounted augmented reality (AR) displays are a promising innovation in neurosurgical visualization, offering the potential to improve ergonomics and team coordination compared to traditional operating microscopes. Surgeons frequently experience physical strain due to fixed postures during long procedures, contributing to work-related musculoskeletal disorders. This technical note reports on the first clinical use of an AR headset during convexity meningioma resection. Methods: An 82-year-old female patient underwent surgical resection of a left convexity meningioma using an AR visualization system (Leica MyVeo). The headset displayed the microscope feed directly into the surgeon's and assistant's field of view, allowing both to maintain ergonomic postures throughout the operation. A post-procedural questionnaire and rapid entire body assessment (REBA) scores were used to evaluate ergonomics and workflow. Results: The AR headset was rated positively for improving team coordination and visualization continuity. Both surgeon and assistant reported increased comfort and reduced strain during the procedure. REBA scores indicated low ergonomic risk (3 for the surgeon, 2 for the assistant), suggesting an improvement over typical scores reported for microscope-based surgery. The tumor was completely resected without complications, and the patient had an uneventful postoperative course. Conclusion: This initial experience demonstrates that AR headsets can be safely integrated into neurosurgical workflows, offering significant ergonomic and collaborative advantages. These findings support further investigation into AR-assisted visualization as a complementary tool to traditional operative microscopy.
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.