ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Assessment of Augmented Reality Glasses for Spatial Tracking and Intraoperative Annotation in Veterinary Surgery.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Augmented reality (AR) glasses may improve surgical precision by projecting holographic overlays directly onto the surgical field. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of AR technology for enhancing spatial tracking. Methods: We developed an AR application in Unity compatible with XReal glasses that allowed users to annotate and interact with a realistic 3D hologram of a dog head. Resident and specialist veterinarians were recruited to completed coordinate (distance) and outline (area) annotations under two conditions: (1) transfer: memorizing targets from a computer screen, and (2) direct: seeing the targets directly on the head. Distance errors, area metrics, and completion times were recorded from each participant. Results: The mean distance error (N = 22) was significantly lower for direct versus transfer coordinates (2.73 ± 0.79 mm vs. 3.42 ± 1.81 mm). Area coverage (N = 20) was higher (83.7% ± 13.4% vs. 63.3% ± 16.2) and non-overlap was similarly reduced with AR-guidance. Completion times differed significantly between the transfer and direct groups for coordinate tasks (11.2 ± 10.4 sec versus 8.19 ± sec) but not for area tracing (25.7 ± 18.3 sec versus 26.8 ± 26.5 sec). Conclusion: AR-guided visualization improved spatial accuracy for both distance and area metrics without reducing speed. The effects observed for specialty, eyewear, or arm length were negligible. However, the level of experience with a cutoff of 2 years did have a significant effect on distance error. Clinical Relevance: These findings support the utility of AR for optimizing surgical precision in veterinary medicine.
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.