SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
The impact of augmented reality on radiation exposure during spine surgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAugmented reality (AR) has rapidly emerged as an important navigational technology in spine surgery, with growing interest in its potential to reduce dependence on fluoroscopy and mitigate radiation exposure for both patients and operating room staff.
methodsThis systematic review examined current evidence on radiation-related outcomes of AR-assisted spine procedures. A PRISMA-guided search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified twelve eligible studies, including randomized trials, prospective and retrospective clinical cohorts, and cadaveric or synthetic-model investigations.
resultsAcross the included studies, AR was consistently associated with reduced fluoroscopy use, with several studies demonstrating statistically significant reductions in exposure time compared with conventional fluoroscopy. Two clinical studies directly measured occupational radiation and reported substantially lower staff doses when AR-based navigation and optimized shielding strategies were employed. Patient radiation exposure was similarly decreased in most studies, particularly when AR was integrated with low-dose cone-beam CT protocols. Operative time findings were mixed, reflecting early learning curves and variability in AR systems, but accuracy remained high across platforms.
conclusionCurrent evidence suggests that AR may reduce intraoperative radiation exposure without compromising workflow or surgical precision, available studies are limited by small sample sizes, heterogenous methodologies, and a paucity of direct staff-dosimetry data. Larger, high-quality multicenter studies are needed to clarify the magnitude of AR's radiation-sparing benefits and to define its role in modern spine surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42149254What 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.