ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
The digital evolution of surgical planning: a systematic review of immersive and interactive technologies.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Posterior Communicating Artery Aneurysm Microsurgery: PComA-CORE, an Anatomy-Informed Explainable AI Framework for Complexity, Neurovascular Risk, Oculomotor Recovery and Functional Outcome.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From Computer-Assisted Surgery to Extended Reality: Research Trends, Global Collaboration, and Future Directions in Craniomaxillofacial Surgery.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Immersive and interactive technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR) are reshaping surgical planning by enhancing anatomical visualization, enabling personalized procedures, and improving intraoperative navigation and decision-making across diverse surgical specialties. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251066149), analyzing 30 studies (1,270 participants) from PubMed, Google Scholar Web of Science and Ovid MEDLINE up to February 2025. Included studies evaluated VR, AR, or MR in preoperative or intraoperativesurgical planning, reporting outcomes on accuracy, time efficiency, or plan modifications. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 for RCTs and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. Results: VR was the most utilized technology (17 studies), improving spatial understanding and prompting plan modifications in 32%-52% of cases (e.g., lung segmentectomies, TAVR). AR (8 studies) enhanced intraoperative accuracy, reducing pedicle screw placement errors (98% vs. 91.7% control) and procedure times (e.g., 50% faster spinal screw placement). MR (2 studies) demonstrated potential in reducing thoracic epidural needle adjustments (7.2 vs. 14.4 movements) and sentinel node biopsy durations (3.6 vs. 7.9 min). Heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes limited meta-analysis. Conclusion: VR enhanced anatomical understanding and preoperative planning, while AR, and MR were better for procedural accuracy and intraoperative workflow. Future multicenter trials with standardized protocols are needed to establish long-term clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness in diverse surgical settings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251066149, PROSPERO CRD420251066149.
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.