Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Real-time artificial intelligence-based needle tracking for ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia training: a pilot prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProper needle visualization is a major technical challenge for novices learning ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA). We developed a 'You Only Look Once version 5' (YOLOv5)-based system that records quantitative needle trajectory data and delivers real-time visual and auditory feedback to support training. This pilot study aimed to explore whether short-term use of the real-time feedback system improved puncture safety and whether needle oscillation amplitude, a system-derived trajectory-based metric, could serve as an objective indicator of technical proficiency in UGRA training.
methodsTwenty-three medical students with no UGRA experience were randomized into control (n = 12) and YOLOv5 feedback (n = 11) groups. Participants performed three in-plane punctures of increasing difficulty on phantoms: sagittal (puncture A), coronal (puncture B), and transverse (puncture C). Each included watching an instructional video, a 5-minute practice (with feedback for the YOLOv5 group or without for the control group), and a test puncture without feedback. The outcomes were needle tip disappearance frequency compared between the control and YOLOv5 feedback groups and needle oscillation amplitude - the maximum lateral deviation from the ideal insertion line, automatically recorded by the system - compared between punctures classified as safe and unsafe by an independent blinded assessor.
resultsNeedle tip disappearance frequency did not differ between the control and YOLOv5 feedback groups across all approaches (puncture A: median, 0 vs. 0, P = 0.933; puncture B: 0 vs. 1, P = 0.246; puncture C: 1 vs. 2, P = 0.463). Only puncture C yielded both safe and unsafe punctures, enabling comparative analysis of the needle oscillation amplitude. Participants performing safe punctures (Level 1, n = 9) exhibited significantly smaller needle oscillation amplitudes (136.0 ± 32.1 pixels) than those performing unsafe punctures (Level 3, n = 12, 230.5 ± 85.4 pixels; P = 0.003).
conclusionsThis pilot study identified needle oscillation amplitude as a candidate objective proficiency metric in UGRA training, with preliminary evidence differentiating safe from unsafe punctures. Short-term training with the current prototype did not produce measurable improvements in puncture safety. However, the usability challenges encountered with this feedback system provided foundational insights for developing an optimized trajectory-based feedback system.
trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000055602), registered October 1, 2024.
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.