ArticleHealthcare technology letters
A Comparative Study of MR-Guided Needle Insertion for Surgical Procedures: Insights From HoloLens 2, Magic Leap 2 and Apple Vision Pro.
Article in Healthcare technology letters. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous minimally invasive procedures, including biopsies, ablations and neurostimulation, rely on the accurate placement of a needle under image guidance. Mixed reality (MR) head-mounted displays (HMDs) offer a promising solution to enhance the guidance of these procedures without radiation. While the performance of the established HoloLens 2, now discontinued, is well-documented, the clinical viability of its potential successors remains unproven. This study provides the first direct comparative benchmark of the HoloLens 2, Magic Leap 2 and Apple Vision Pro for a high-precision needle insertion task, using sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) as a validation scenario. We developed custom applications for each platform and evaluated the performance with 11 users, including nine clinicians without prior HMD experience, through a randomized protocol. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to assess procedural efficiency and user experience. Results identified the Magic Leap 2 as the most effective platform, demonstrating significantly higher success rates and superior usability scores, driven by its ergonomic design and stable tracking. In contrast, the Apple Vision Pro, despite offering superior visual fidelity, proved unsuitable for this navigation task. Its performance was critically hampered by unstable marker tracking, significant device weight, and a lack of accommodation for prescription glasses, which disrupted the clinical workflow. The HoloLens 2 performed as a reliable, albeit less usable, baseline. We conclude that, for this surgical navigation purpose, the optimal HMD is determined by a balanced combination of tracking reliability, user comfort, and practical workflow integration, over the technical specifications of the device. These findings emphasize the importance of device selection in enhancing procedural outcomes and clinical training.
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.