ReviewJPRAS open2026
Extended reality for perforator visualization in deep inferior epigastric perforator autologous breast reconstruction: A systematic review.
Review in JPRAS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Extended Reality (XR) technology is rapidly advancing and has shown promise in improving perioperative outcomes across various surgical specialties. Objective: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the use of XR for perforator vessel visualization in autologous breast reconstruction. Method: A systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, consulting Embase, Medline (Ovid), Web-of-Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar on June 23, 2025. Articles describing the use of XR for perioperative perforator visualization in free flap breast reconstruction were included. Outcome measures included perforator identification rate, virtual model construction time, preoperative planning duration, flap dissection time, usability, complications, and costs. Results: Ten articles were included, all focused on XR in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. Three XR modalities were identified: virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) projection, and AR glasses. Perforator identification using XR ranged from 61.7 % to 100 %, with AR outperforming handheld Doppler ultrasound (US) in several studies. XR use decreased operative time, with AR reducing intraoperative perforator localization time from 20 min using handheld Doppler US to 2.3 min. The use of XR did not result in significant additional costs, and no differences in complication rates were identified. Conclusion: XR may assist surgeons in perioperative perforator visualization during DIEP flap breast reconstruction by enhancing anatomical understanding. However, current evidence is constrained by small, low-quality studies and comparisons with handheld Doppler rather than the gold standard computed tomography angiography (CTA). Whether XR offers clinically meaningful advantages over conventional CTA imaging remains uncertain, as this was not explored in the included articles. Larger, high-quality comparative studies are needed to establish its true clinical value.
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.