ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Optical See-Through and Video See-Through Head-Mounted Displays for Percutaneous Biopsies: A Comparative Phantom Study.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the added benefit of optical see-through, the Magic Leap 2 (ML2), and video see-through, the Apple Vision Pro (AVP), head-mounted displays extended reality (XR) during percutaneous biopsies on an abdominal phantom. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this phantom-based prospective cohort study, sixteen radiologists (5 experienced and 11 beginners) performed six needle insertions: two without XR, two with ML2, and two with AVP. Two lesions of differing difficulty (depth and proximity to vessels) were targeted. Post-procedure CT measured accuracy (hitting the target and distance and angle to lesion center). Cognitive workload and user experience were assessed using a structured questionnaire with a rating of 0-20.
resultsBeginners benefited more from XR than experienced radiologists. Beginners improved their targeting accuracy with XR, especially for the more complex lesion closer to blood vessels, where success rates increased using XR (conventional: 1/11, ML2: 2/11, AVP: 4/11), with a decrease in mean distance to target (conventional: 17.95 ± 9.14 mm; ML2: 14.21 ± 6.27 mm; AVP: 12.02 ± 7.19 mm). Advanced radiologists had overall lower success rates (conventional: 1/5, ML2: 0/5, AVP: 1/5). XR also reduced puncture time for beginner (ML2: 68.1%, AVP: 56.9% of baseline) and advanced radiologists (ML2: 79.0%, AVP: 61.7%). Questionnaire results indicated AVP was perceived as more mentally demanding, particularly by experienced radiologists (mental demand: conventional: 11, ML2: 9, AVP: 12, for beginners, and conventional: 12, ML2: 11, AVP: 17, for advanced). Beginners adapted well to both systems, showing no significant difference in perceived workload compared to conventional puncture and similar performance levels (conventional: 9, ML2: 9, AVP: 12, for beginners, and conventional: 15, ML2: 11, AVP: 7, for advanced).
conclusionOur work demonstrates that AVP performs similar to ML2 in needle placement tasks and can be used in further research and clinical application in interventional radiology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: No level of evidence.
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.