ReviewUpdates in surgery2026
A review of head-mounted devices for surgical education, preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation.
Review in Updates in 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Head-Mounted Devices (HMDs) are wearable display systems that present immersive 3D virtual information directly in the user's line of sight. The review investigates the role and effectiveness of HMDs utilizing Mixed Reality (MR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Virtual Reality (VR) technologies in surgical education, preoperative planning, and intraoperative navigation, and identifies existing barriers to their broader adoption within the domain of surgical training and practice. A systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was performed, focusing on studies covering Virtual, Augmented, or Mixed Reality applications in surgical education, navigation, and planning. The search yielded 4783 studies published between 2019 and 2025; out of these, 33 were selected for detailed review based on predetermined inclusion criteria. Most included studies emphasized simulation-driven training protocols (27%) and modules for preoperative surgical planning (42%), with only a minority addressing intraoperative navigation systems (18%). Other studies (12%) were related to Marker-less image registration and usage of HMDs in bedside teaching during Covid. Typical limitations were small participant sizes, non-standardized outcome measures, and a lack of unified assessment frameworks. Reported benefits of HMD platforms included enhanced immersion, improved spatial orientation, procedural accuracy, and replication of surgical scenarios, exceeding the value of traditional approaches. HMD-based platforms provide significant advantages in surgical education and practice, facilitating superior simulation experiences, preoperative planning, and intraoperative navigation. Despite these advances, broader usage is limited by the absence of standardized evaluation tools, heterogeneous outcomes, and validation across larger, diverse cohorts. Future research should prioritize multicentric validation, curricular integration, and development of objective assessment tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42189374What 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.