ArticleBrain sciences2026
Patient-Specific 3D-Printed Models and Mixed-Reality Head-Mounted Display Visualization for Aneurysm Clip Ligation Planning: A Methodological Workflow Study.
Article in Brain sciences, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMixed-reality head-mounted display (MR-HMD) visualization and 3D-printed models may improve three-dimensional visualization in neurosurgical planning. Detailed, reproducible descriptions of the workflows, technical requirements, and practical limitations of these techniques in aneurysm clip ligation planning remain limited.
methodsBetween February 2020 and June 2021, patient-specific MR-HMD visualizations and 3D-printed models were generated for 29 patients undergoing elective surgical clip ligation of intracranial aneurysms. CT and 3D rotational angiography were fused to create patient-specific holograms for MR-HMD visualization and 3D-printed models. All cases underwent standardized modality-specific processing. Preparation and manufacturing times as well as recorded workflow-related usability observations, technical advantages, and limitations were assessed.
resultsThe mean total preparation time (mean ± standard deviation, SD) was 40.6 ± 10.3 min for MR-HMD visualization and 108.8 ± 17.8 min for 3D-printed models, excluding printing, washing, and curing time. The average printing time for 3D-printed models was 894.9 ± 41.6 min. MR-HMD setup in the operating room averaged 7.0 ± 2.8 min. Identified limitations included manual hologram registration and repositioning after table or patient position changes, as well as the inability to track instruments or interact with the hologram.
conclusionsBoth modalities could be integrated into a standardized patient-specific workflow and serve complementary functions. MR-HMD visualization supported flexible short-term visualization, whereas 3D-printed models provided a physical model for clip planning and patient education at the cost of longer preparation and production. These findings support a combined workflow in which modality selection is guided by clinical tasks and time constraints.
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.