Trial reportActa neurochirurgica2025
Comparing augmented reality-assisted and freehand external ventricular drain placement: a multicenter randomized controlled crossover phantom study.
Trial report in Acta neurochirurgica, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExternal ventricular drain (EVD) placement is a common neurosurgical procedure with high rates of misplacement when performed using the freehand technique. With augmented reality (AR), the accuracy of EVD placement could be improved by providing a 3-D overlay, guiding optimal placement using a virtual trajectory superimposed over the patient. In this study, we aimed to assess the efficacy and usability of an AR application for assisting EVD placements which supported trajectory planning, point-based image-to-patient registration and 3-D stereoscopic projection.
methodWe conducted a randomized controlled crossover trial involving 15 neurosurgical residents and one neurosurgeon, who performed 236 EVD procedures (118 AR-assisted and 118 freehand) on biomimetic phantoms. EVD placement accuracy was evaluated using the Kakarla scale, distance-to-target, angular inaccuracy, and depth inaccuracy. The total procedural time was recorded. The user experience was evaluated using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) and the Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use (USE) questionnaire.
resultsAR-assisted placement achieved significantly higher rates of optimal placement (Kakarla grade 1: 57.6% vs 37.3%; p < .001), lower rates of erroneous placement (Kakarla grade 3: 21.2% vs 40.7%; p < .001), a lower distance-to-target (median, 7.2 mm vs 11.4 mm; p < .001) and lower angular inaccuracy (median, 5.58° vs 7.60°; p < .001). Procedural time was longer for AR (median, 7 min 30 s vs 1 min 11 s; p < .001). Participants rated the AR system favorably on the USE for ease of learning (mean, 6.09/7 [SD, 0.94]) and satisfaction (mean, 6.45/7 [SD, 0.69]), while NASA-TLX scores indicated similar workloads between AR and freehand techniques.
conclusionsAR improves the accuracy of EVD placement compared to the freehand technique, which is expected to improve the efficacy in clinical settings. It increases total procedural time but remains within clinically acceptable limits and provides favorable usability.
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.