ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Augmented and virtual reality for preprocedural planning and intraprocedural guidance in transplant hepatic artery stenting.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeHepatic artery stenosis is a recognized vascular complication after orthotopic liver transplantation, and endovascular treatment is technically demanding because of variable post-surgical anatomy. Augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) allows immersive review of patient-specific three-dimensional imaging, but its clinical application to transplant hepatic artery interventions remains poorly described. This study evaluated the feasibility, usability, and perceived impact of AR/VR for preprocedural planning and intraprocedural guidance in transplant hepatic artery (HA) stenting.
methodsThis IRB-approved single-center pilot study included eight consecutive patients undergoing transplant HA stenting from January 2025 to May 2026. Preprocedural planning was performed using an AR/VR headset and spatial computing software. In the final three cases, AR was used intraprocedurally to display live fluoroscopy during the procedure. Postprocedure surveys assessed workflow integration, anatomic visualization, confidence, usability, and comfort using 5-point Likert scales.
resultsCases were emergent in 12.5% and elective in 87.5%; 62.5% were high complexity. All cases were technically successful without major complications. Median case, fluoroscopy, and AR/VR planning times were 159.5, 34.8, and 4.5 min, respectively; median air kerma was 678 mGy. AR/VR planning represented 3.6% of case time and was perceived to change the approach in 6/8 cases (75%). Visualization, workflow integration, confidence, and anatomic understanding each received median scores of 5. Headset comfort was lowest-rated. Intraprocedural AR was successful in all 3 cases.
conclusionAR/VR planning for transplant HA stenting is feasible, influencing procedural strategy in 75% of cases with maximum operator ratings for visualization, confidence, and workflow integration. Intraprocedural AR during transradial access was feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42726130What 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.