7 Congenital heart studies in the library address this question.
“Spatial relationships were generally better visualized using 3D methods (3D printing/3D-VR) than in 2D.”
Peek 2023 · Comparative study · n: 5 patients
“CR-holograms were superior to 3D prints in all categories (mean Likert scale 4.4 ± 1.0 vs. 3.7 ± 1.3, P < 0.05).”
Gehrsitz 2021 · Comparative study · n: 26 patients
“Out of these modalities, 76.4% of the specialists ranked VR as the best for understanding the spatial associations between cardiac structures and for presurgical planning.”
Lee 2024 · Survey/user study · n: 3 cases
“The results showed that the MR models were ranked as the best modality amongst the three, and were significantly better than DICOM images in demonstrating complex CHD lesions (mean difference (MD) = 0.76, p = 0.01)”
Lau 2022 · Survey/user study · n: 2 cases
Study designs: 2 comparative or prospective studies, 3 surveys and user studies and 2 case reports, case series and technical reports.
Peek JJ et al. · Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2023
Congenital heart · Comparative study · n: 5 patients
“Spatial relationships were generally better visualized using 3D methods (3D printing/3D-VR) than in 2D.”
Gehrsitz P et al. · Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021
Congenital heart · Comparative study · n: 26 patients
“CR-holograms were superior to 3D prints in all categories (mean Likert scale 4.4 ± 1.0 vs. 3.7 ± 1.3, P < 0.05).”
P < 0.05
Lee SY et al. · Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024
Congenital heart · Survey/user study · n: 3 cases
“Out of these modalities, 76.4% of the specialists ranked VR as the best for understanding the spatial associations between cardiac structures and for presurgical planning.”
76.4%
Lau I et al. · Biomolecules · 2022
Congenital heart · Survey/user study · n: 2 cases
“The results showed that the MR models were ranked as the best modality amongst the three, and were significantly better than DICOM images in demonstrating complex CHD lesions (mean difference (MD) = 0.76, p = 0.01)”
p = 0.01
Lau I et al. · Biomolecules · 2021
Congenital heart · Survey/user study · n: 4 cases
“VR was perceived as more useful in medical education and preoperative planning compared to 3D printed heart models, although there was no significant difference in the ratings (p = 0.54 and 0.35, respectively).”
p = 0.54
Charalampous P et al. · Research Square · 2023
Congenital heart · Preprint (technical development) · n: 1 patient
Raimondi F et al. · Journal of cardiac surgery · 2021
Congenital heart · Technical development (case series) · n: 3 patients
“The median post-processing time to get VR models using DIVA was 5 min in comparison to 8 h (range 8-12 h including printing time) for 3D models (PDF/printed).”
5 min
All congenital heart studiesThis question across specialtiesBrowse the whole library
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.