Trial reportScientific reports2026
Comparison of mixed reality and computed tomography-guided preoperative hook-wire localization for pulmonary nodules in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a noninferiority randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Preoperative localization of pulmonary nodules is critical for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Traditional Computed Tomography (CT)-guided localization has limitations, including radiation exposure and procedural complexity. Mixed Reality (MR)-guided localization offers a promising alternative, potentially improving accuracy, efficiency, and safety. To compare the accuracy, efficiency, and safety of MR-guided versus CT-guided preoperative localization for pulmonary nodules in VATS through a noninferiority randomized trial. This prospective, single-center, noninferiority randomized clinical trial enrolled 90 patients with small pulmonary nodules. Patients were randomized to either MR-guided or CT-guided localization groups. The primary outcome was localization accuracy, measured by deviation from the target nodule. Secondary outcomes included procedural duration, insertion attempts, radiation exposure, complications, and surgical outcomes. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were both performed. The MR-guided group demonstrated significantly higher localization accuracy, with smaller total deviation (5.50 mm vs. 6.84 mm, p = 0.04) and vertical deviation (p = 0.04). Procedural duration (3.98 min vs. 10.73 min, p < 0.001) and insertion attempts (1.05 vs. 2.28, p < 0.001) were significantly reduced in the MR-guided group. Radiation exposure was also lower, with fewer CT scans and reduced dose length product and effective dose (p < 0.001). Complication rates, including pneumothorax and hemorrhage, were slightly lower in the MR-guided group but not statistically significant. Surgical outcomes were comparable between groups. MR-guided localization met the noninferiority criteria to CT-guided localization in terms of localization accuracy and overall safety, and showed exploratory clinical benefits with notably improved procedural efficiency and reduced radiation exposure. These findings support its potential as a safe and effective alternative for preoperative pulmonary nodule localization in thoracic surgery.
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.