ReviewFederal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS2025
The Integration of Extended Reality in Arthroplasty: Reviewing Technological Progress and Clinical Benefits.
Review in Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Extended reality (XR) has shown promise in the operating room for enhancing surgical precision and improving patient outcomes. With the evolution of individualized planning in orthopedic surgery, precise implant alignment is integral to improving pain and function. XR encompasses augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR). Both AR and MR have been adapted for operating room use, while VR has been adapted for surgical planning and educational training. Methods: A literature search identified studies evaluating XR in arthroplasty and XR systems approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. This narrative report highlights the integration of XR in arthroplasty. Results: In total hip arthroplasty (THA), XR is most effective for maximizing alignment of the acetabular cup. Traditional techniques make ideal anteversion and inclination angles difficult to achieve, values critical for implant stability and the prevention of impingement and precocious wear. XR systems have been shown to improve the accuracy of inclination compared with traditional techniques in THA. For total knee arthroplasty (TKA), XR proves most useful in ensuring accurate alignment and resection for the tibial and femoral components. XR systems for TKA have been shown to increase the accuracy of distal femoral resection with a limited increase in surgery duration. Conventional techniques for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) are complicated by the difficulty faced in accessing and visualizing key structures with the shoulder, particularly with the recent trend towards minimally invasive techniques. Issues with implant positioning are more common in TSA than other joint arthroplasties, making XR particularly promising in this setting. Conclusions: XR technologies have shown significant potential in enhancing precision and patient outcomes in arthroplasty. There are some disadvantages to its use, however, including high cost and increased operative time. Integrating XR into surgical practice can improve implant alignment and accuracy, addressing challenges faced with conventional techniques.
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.