ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2026
Comparative study of ultrasound shape completion and CBCT-based AR workflows for spinal needle interventions.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study compares two augmented reality (AR)-guided imaging workflows, one based on ultrasound shape completion and the other on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), for planning and executing lumbar needle interventions. The aim is to assess how imaging modality influences user performance, usability, and trust during AR-assisted spinal procedures.
methodsBoth imaging systems were integrated into an AR framework, enabling in situ visualization and trajectory guidance. The ultrasound-based workflow combined AR-guided robotic scanning, probabilistic shape completion, and AR visualization. The CBCT-based workflow used AR-assisted scan volume planning, CBCT acquisition, and AR visualization. A between-subject user study was conducted and evaluated in two phases: (1) planning and image acquisition, and (2) needle insertion.
resultsPlanning time was significantly shorter with the CBCT-based workflow, while SUS, SEQ, and NASA-TLX were comparable between modalities. In the needle insertion phase, the CBCT-based workflow yielded marginally faster insertion times, significantly lower overall placement error, and better subjective ratings with higher Trust. The ultrasound-based workflow achieved adequate accuracy for facet joint insertion, but showed larger errors for lumbar puncture, where reconstructions depended more heavily on shape completion.
conclusionThe findings indicate that both AR-guided imaging pipelines are viable for spinal intervention support. CBCT-based AR offers advantages in efficiency, precision, usability, and user confidence during insertion, whereas ultrasound-based AR provides adaptive, radiation-free imaging but is limited by shape completion in deeper spinal regions. These complementary characteristics motivate hybrid AR guidance that uses CBCT for global anatomical context and planning, augmented by ultrasound for adaptive intraoperative updates.
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.