Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42100133›Full record

ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2026

Augmented Reality in Navigated Surgery: A Systematic Review of Clinical Accuracy and System Performance.

Noa Nicolai, Sander J C Tabernée Heijtmeijer, Mohamed Benmahdjoub, Joep Kraeima, Sarina E C Pichardo, Max J H Witjes, Peter A J Pijpker, Joël Kortes, Nard G Janssen, Jan Eelco Bergsma

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Noa Nicolai3D Lab, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands.
Sander J C Tabernée Heijtmeijer3D Lab, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Netherlands.
Mohamed BenmahdjoubDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Joep Kraeima3D Lab, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Netherlands.
Sarina E C PichardoDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Netherlands.
Max J H WitjesDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Netherlands.
Peter A J Pijpker3D Lab, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Netherlands.
Joël Kortes3D Lab, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands.
Nard G JanssenDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands.
Jan Eelco BergsmaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the current state of clinically tested augmented reality and mixed reality, hereafter referred to as AR, navigation systems, with a focus on accuracy, usability, and factors influencing clinical implementation. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection including studies published between January 1, 2018, and July 14, 2025. Only clinical studies involving patients were included. Data extraction covered study characteristics, surgical specialty, AR system type, reported accuracy, usability assessments, and implementation-related factors. Results: Of 1956 screened records, 61 studies met the inclusion criteria. The applications spanned oral and maxillofacial surgery (k=17), neurosurgery (k=12), spinal surgery (k=11), and orthopedics (k=10), among others. Reported accuracy metrics varied substantially across studies. Moreover, AR navigation often reduced radiation exposure during surgery and sometimes shortened operative time, although timing effects varied by specialty. Usability was rarely measured with standardized tools and was mostly described qualitatively. Common limitations were limited accuracy, ergonomic issues, and workflow-integration challenges. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation ratings were generally low or very low owing to small samples, heterogeneous methods, and risk of bias. Conclusion: Although AR navigation demonstrates encouraging technical performance and potential reductions in radiation exposure, the underlying evidence is predominantly of very low certainty, and any impression of pooled robustness should be avoided. Furthermore, clinical integration is hindered by technical, ergonomic, and workflow-related barriers. Future work should incorporate robust methodological designs aimed at improving registration accuracy, overcoming hardware shortcomings, and systematically evaluating usability through validated, standardized tools.

Identifiers

PMID42100133
PMCPMC13144587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.