ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Feasibility and Usability of Head-Mounted Display Augmented Reality During Routine Radiological Interventions: The Prospective AZURION-AR Study.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 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
purposeTo evaluate the feasibility, usability, and perceived workload of the AZURION-AR augmented reality (AR) medical device during routine interventional radiology procedures in a real-world clinical setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective, single-center, single-arm feasibility study included six interventional radiologists performing 34 AR-assisted vascular and non-vascular procedures. The AZURION-AR system projected virtual monitor and touchscreen interfaces within the operator's visual field. Post-procedural structured interviews and standardized 5-point Likert questionnaires assessed usability (System Usability Scale, SUS; 1-5 per item, max score: 100), workload (NASA Task Load Index, NASA-TLX; 0-21 per domain), and image quality (1-5 scale).
resultsContinuous head-mounted display use throughout the procedure occurred in 20 cases (58%); mean wearing time was 40 min [5-140 min] versus a mean procedure duration of 59 min [20-240 min]. Mean SUS score was 64.5 ± 11.1, indicating moderate usability with considerable inter-operator variability. Mean NASA-TLX score was 7.6 ± 1.4, reflecting acceptable workload. Mean image quality score was 3.5 ± 0.6, with substantial variability across interventions. Scores tended to be lower in vascular and complex drainage procedures, reflecting increased effort and frustration, reduced anatomical detail, limited spatial resolution, and technical issues such as battery depletion and signal lag.
conclusionThe AZURION-AR medical device proved feasible for use during routine interventional radiology offering unanimously rated perceived ergonomic advantages. Although usability was moderate, limitations in image resolution, technical reliability, and battery life require further refinement before reliable routine clinical implementation can be achieved, particularly for procedures requiring high spatial resolution and detailed anatomical assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42778639What 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.