14 studies in the library address this question.
Yes. The library lists 14 randomized trials, from 2019 to 2026, in areas including urology, cardiology, plastic surgery and spine. Examples are Shirk 2019 and Shirk 2022 in robotic prostatectomy, Cumpanas 2025 in kidney stone surgery, Kanschik 2026 in TAVI and Garg 2025 in structural heart interventions. Most are small or add VR to standard planning, and they measure different endpoints, so they are best read one at a time.
Study designs: 14 randomized trials.
Counts come from the studies' own design labels in the library.
Specialties with enough studies link to a page for that specialty and question.
Duarte DM Junior et al. · International braz j urol · 2026
Urology · Randomized controlled trial · n: 45 patients
“Analyses indicated statistically significant difference in ischemia time favoring RG (p = 0.045), with a mean difference of 3.8 minutes.”
p = 0.045
Pargätzi GY et al. · Scientific reports · 2026
Oral & maxillofacial / craniofacial · Randomized crossover · n: 15 participants; 5 CT datasets · Used Elucis
“Both platforms received equivalent ratings for anatomical structure recognition and physical fatigue.”
Kanschik D et al. · Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging · 2026
Adult cardiac & structural heart · Randomized controlled trial · n: 140 patients
“VR was superior to 3mensio software with respect to the 3-dimensional understanding (P<0.001).”
P<0.001
Kim S et al. · Journal of pain research · 2026
Anesthesia & pain · Randomized controlled trial · n: 30 patients
“Procedure time was shorter in the VR group than in the control group (215.7 ± 46.8 sec vs 254.5 ± 50.3 sec; mean difference, -38.9 sec; 95% CI, -75.2 to -2.5; p = 0.037).”
p = 0.037
Cumpanas AD et al. · The Journal of urology · 2025
Urology · Randomized controlled trial · n: 175 patients
“Preoperative visualization of the iVR model resulted in a changed calyx of entry in 30% of cases.”
30%
Nunes KL et al. · The Laryngoscope · 2025
ENT / head & neck · Randomized controlled trial · n: 34 patients
“VRCEP was associated with decreased defect-driven margins (10% vs. 53.3%, p = 0.032).”
p = 0.032
Liu Y et al. · BMC Medicine · 2025
Plastic & reconstructive · Randomized controlled trial · n: 80 patients
“Recognition rates were 94.3% in the MR group and 82.0% in the CDU group (P = 0.008).”
P = 0.008
Garg I et al. · Annals of pediatric cardiology · 2025
Congenital heart · Randomized controlled trial · n: 40 patients
“Adding VR reduced plan deviations and was comparable to those of the senior cardiologist (P = 0.233), indicating enhanced understanding by an early-career operator.”
P = 0.233
Zhang Y et al. · Mathematical Problems in Engineering · 2023
Plastic & reconstructive · Randomized controlled trial · n: 58 patients
“In addition, doctors were significantly more satisfied with surgical planning and intraoperative localization when the MR technique was used (T = 8.273; P < 0.01 ).”
T = 8.273
Yang Y et al. · Journal of endourology · 2022
Urology · Randomized controlled trial · n: 92 patients
“For urologists treating complex renal tumors, MR technology can help them reduce the warm ischemia time (21.3 ± 4.0 vs 23.6 ± 5.9 minutes, p = 0.031), reconstruction time (15.4 ± 3.8 vs 17.2 ± 4.2 minutes, p = 0.034)”
p = 0.031
Shirk JD et al. · The Journal of urology · 2022
Urology · Randomized controlled trial · n: 92 patients
“In 32% of intervention cases, the surgeons modified their operative plan based on the model.”
32%
Ye W et al. · Clinical radiology · 2021
Congenital heart · Randomized controlled trial · n: 34 patients
“In the MRHG group, the 3D hologram observation was in concordance with the actual anatomical findings, and the DORV type was classified accurately in all patients.”
Zheng C et al. · World neurosurgery · 2019
Spine · Randomized controlled trial · n: 30 patients
“The use of virtual reality can predict a surgery-related angle and distance accurately except for depth.”
Shirk JD et al. · JAMA network open · 2019
Urology · Randomized controlled trial · n: 92 patients
“When controlling for case complexity and other covariates, patients whose surgical planning involved 3-D VR models showed differences in operative time (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.37-2.70; estimated OR, 2.47), estimated blood loss (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.04-3.78; estimated OR, 4.56), clamp time (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 0.79-3.23; estimated OR, 11.22), and length of hospital stay (OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.59-5.14; estimated OR, 5.43).”
Summarises published research on VR/AR surgical planning across all platforms. Not product labelling. For Elucis indications see /elucis.
Intended for healthcare professionals.
Summaries and quotes describe each study's methods and the findings its authors report. They are not claims by Realize Medical and may contain errors: please read the original paper. Inclusion is not an endorsement of any product or use.