ArticleSurgery open science2026
A qualitative human factors investigation of the impact of intraoperative CT-based navigation on interprofessional work in the operating theatre.
Article in Surgery open science, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Intraoperative CT-based navigation (iCT) is increasingly used in complex spine surgeries. We examined the impact of this technology on interprofessional work in the operating room (OR). Methods: Single-site qualitative study. We interviewed surgeons, anesthesiologists, and nurses involved in spine surgeries with iCT. We modeled the work system using the SEIPS framework and conducted inductive content analysis. Results: We interviewed 20 professionals. All participants agreed on the benefits of iCT for surgical outcomes. However, it came with ergonomic challenges. The imaging system is a large piece of equipment. Its installation in a preexisting OR resulted in limitations of movements around the patient and in the room. Anesthesiologic and surgical teams required additional time to discuss patient positioning and ensure sufficient space for everyone, as well as adequate access to airways for anesthesiologists and anesthesia nurses. With the new technology also came new tasks. Surgeons usually managed the initial image acquisition, but to avoid desterilization during the procedure, nurses also had to learn to use the equipment. Permanent staff members progressively developed expertise; however, with high turnover among nurses and the use of agency staff, it proved difficult to ensure that surgical nurses were consistently trained in the use of the equipment. Over time, anesthetic and surgical teams adjusted their practices to balance the surgical benefits of the technology with ergonomic concerns. Conclusion: Implementing iCT can disrupt work systems and requires careful consideration of human and organizational factors in the OR to ensure patient safety. Multicentric studies would be needed.
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.