ArticleIrish journal of medical science2026
Integrating mixed reality navigation in spine surgery: experience from a national spinal injuries unit and logistical-economic analysis.
Article in Irish journal of medical 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMixed Reality (MR) navigation is an emerging technology that overlays three-dimensional anatomical reconstructions into the surgeon's operative field. This study presents the first-in-world case series describing the clinical application, workflow integration, and logistical-economic considerations of the Brainlab Spine Mixed Reality Navigation System in spinal surgery.
settingNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Dublin, Ireland.
methodsA retrospective review was performed of prospectively collected demographic and operative data from all spinal procedures using the Brainlab MR navigation platform at a national spinal injuries unit between September 2024 and March 2025. Fifteen patients (9 female, 6 male; mean Accepted manuscript age 57 years, range 18-76 years) underwent posterior spinal procedures, including trauma, degenerative, oncologic, and deformity cases. Operative approach, levels fused, use of minimally ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT invasive techniques, setup time, and intraoperative workflow integration were documented. Postoperative imaging was reviewed for hardware placement and alignment.
resultsThe MR platform was implemented in six trauma cases, five degenerative pathologies, three oncologic resections, and one deformity correction. Four procedures (27%) used percutaneous techniques. The mean number of levels fused was 2.9 (range 1-8). All cases were posterior approaches with the patient prone. The MR system added approximately 3-5 minutes for registration, with headset re-registration required in three cases, resolved without significant delay. No intraoperative complications were attributable to MR use. Postoperative imaging confirmed correct hardware positioning and satisfactory alignment in all patients. Surgeons reported particular benefit in percutaneous stabilisations and tumour resections due to continuous 3D anatomical overlays. The 3-year cost for a dual-headset system was €59,660, with no ongoing per-case consumable costs.
conclusionThis initial institutional experience demonstrates the feasibility and safety of MR navigation across a diverse posterior spinal case mix. The system integrates efficiently into existing workflows, enhances spatial awareness, and may offer particular value in minimally invasive and tumour cases. Further prospective, comparative studies are required to validate clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and broader adoption potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42747762What 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.