The library holds 47 Multi-specialty studies, published 2017–2026; 24 of them since 2024.
Study designs: 2 comparative or prospective studies, 2 retrospective studies, 7 surveys and user studies, 17 reviews and 19 case reports, case series and technical reports.
Quoted from the studies. Each question lists the studies that report on it.
Of 7 studies with a finding on this question: 4 report a positive finding, 1 mixed, 2 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“According to experts, the most useful areas are medical education and surgical planning.”
Veloso 2022 · Survey/user study · n: 22 experts
“A subjective pilot study with 10 clinicians (4 experienced, 6 less experienced; roles: surgeons/trainees), conducted following ITU-R BT.500-15 methodology, reports consistently positive ratings (4.2-4.9/5 on a 5-point Likert scale) on perceived accuracy, responsiveness, and usefulness, indicating potential for clinical and educational scenarios.”
Trioux 2026 · Technical development · n: 10 clinicians
“Segmentation-based visualization was implemented for preoperative planning in two patients with skull-based malignancies; the surgical team described the 3D workflow as useful for operative planning.”
Oudeh 2026 · Preprint (experience report)
Of 5 studies with a finding on this question: 3 report a positive finding, 2 mixed. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“While XR technologies improved surgeon confidence and altered surgical strategies in several cases, most studies were small and single-center feasibility evaluations.”
Afroz 2026 · Systematic review · n: 30 studies
“VR was the most utilized technology (17 studies), improving spatial understanding and prompting plan modifications in 32%-52% of cases (e.g., lung segmentectomies, TAVR).”
Khubzan 2026 · Systematic review
“Notably, surgical planning using VR led to more frequent changes in surgical plans compared to planning with other visualization methods when surgeons reassessed their initial plans.”
Queisner 2024 · Systematic review
Of 6 studies with a finding on this question: 6 report a positive finding. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“Ninety-two percent of surveyed surgeons reported improved 3D anatomical understanding and enhanced intraoperative safety.”
Cebrián-Carretero 2026 · Retrospective cohort · n: 308 cases
“Stereoscopic vision as provided by commercially available VR headset helps resolve ambiguity inherent to virtual scenes containing structures of unknown size and location.”
Abramson 2025 · Survey/user study
“VRM increased the operating surgeon's confidence 63% of the time.”
Bramlet 2024 · Survey/user study · n: 12 patients
Of 4 studies with a finding on this question: 3 report a positive finding, 1 no significant difference. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“Mean preoperative planning time was reduced by 34% (-42 h; 95% CI: -48 to -36 h; p < 0.01) compared with historical controls.”
Cebrián-Carretero 2026 · Retrospective cohort · n: 308 cases
“This review demonstrates that time spent rehearsing and visualizing patient-specific anatomical relationships in VR may improve operative efficiency and communication across multiple surgical specialties.”
Laskay 2023 · Systematic review
“Deployed in routine clinical workflows at La Paz University Hospital, the platform has demonstrated reduced preoperative planning times and improved surgical accuracy.”
Martín Cubillo 2025 · Technical development
Of 5 studies with a finding on this question: 2 report a positive finding, 1 mixed, 2 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“Lin's concordance correlation coefficients were 1.00 and 0.98 for the circumference and angle measurements, respectively, indicating almost perfect strength of agreement between ARPPS and PACS.”
Dallas-Orr 2020 · Validation study
“AR (8 studies) enhanced intraoperative accuracy, reducing pedicle screw placement errors (98% vs. 91.7% control) and procedure times (e.g., 50% faster spinal screw placement).”
Khubzan 2026 · Systematic review
“No statistically significant difference existed between AR and GS measurements (P = .6208).”
Chang 2020 · Validation study
Of 15 studies with a finding on this question: 5 report a positive finding, 1 mixed, 9 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“Across diverse oncologic contexts and surgical specialties, 3D reconstruction, printing, and AR were successfully integrated into existing perioperative workflows, with each modality selected based on the specific clinical problem at hand.”
Oudeh 2026 · Preprint (experience report)
“We show that the presented approach can avoid dropped frames at the typical update rate of 90 frames per second of a desktop-based VR system and, therefore, provide a comfortable user experience even in the presence of more than twenty individual volumes.”
Faludi 2025 · Technical development
“The testing of the algorithm for the application of AR technology in the surgical treatment of primary and recurrent pelvic tumors demonstrated both a technical possibility and reproducibility of this algorithm and the AR technology itself in clinical practice.”
Ivanov 2023 · Case series · n: 11 patients
Chang F et al. · Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · 2020
Multi-specialty · Validation study
“No statistically significant difference existed between AR and GS measurements (P = .6208).”
P = .6208
Dallas-Orr D et al. · JMIR perioperative medicine · 2020
Multi-specialty · Validation study
“Lin's concordance correlation coefficients were 1.00 and 0.98 for the circumference and angle measurements, respectively, indicating almost perfect strength of agreement between ARPPS and PACS.”
1.00 and 0.98
Cebrián-Carretero JL et al. · Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
Multi-specialty · Retrospective cohort · n: 308 cases
“Mean preoperative planning time was reduced by 34% (-42 h; 95% CI: -48 to -36 h; p < 0.01) compared with historical controls.”
34%
Bronowicki K et al. · NPJ digital medicine · 2025
Multi-specialty · Retrospective cohort · n: 9 patients
“Although a slight increase in procedure time was observed in a few cases, MR did not significantly prolong SP or H.”
Abramson ZR et al. · International Journal of Radiology & Radiation Therapy · 2025
Multi-specialty · Survey/user study
“Stereoscopic vision as provided by commercially available VR headset helps resolve ambiguity inherent to virtual scenes containing structures of unknown size and location.”
Kazemipour N et al. · International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024
Multi-specialty · Survey/user study
“Both novices and experts preferred the AR system for pedicle screw placement.”
Bramlet M et al. · Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A · 2024
Multi-specialty · Survey/user study · n: 12 patients
“VRM increased the operating surgeon's confidence 63% of the time.”
63%
Latorre-Rojas et al. et al. · 2023 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW) · 2023
Multi-specialty · Conference paper (qualitative)
Veloso R et al. · Kalpa publications in computing · 2022
Multi-specialty · Survey/user study · n: 22 experts
“According to experts, the most useful areas are medical education and surgical planning.”
Muff JL et al. · 3D printing in medicine · 2022
Multi-specialty · Survey/user study
“Possible change in treatment was reported using 3D-Print in 33%, VR-Glasses in 44%, and 3D-Display in 33% of participants.”
44%
Allgaier M et al. · Computers in biology and medicine · 2022
Multi-specialty · Survey/user study
“Although no device stands out for both applications, most participants preferred using the VR Ink, followed by the controller and finally the data gloves and craniotome.”
Afroz S, Zhang L · Frontiers in Virtual Reality · 2026
Multi-specialty · Systematic review · n: 30 studies
“While XR technologies improved surgeon confidence and altered surgical strategies in several cases, most studies were small and single-center feasibility evaluations.”
Ahmad S · Max Healthcare Medical Journal (Max Healthcare Institute) · 2026
Multi-specialty · Narrative review
Khubzan WD et al. · Frontiers in surgery · 2026
Multi-specialty · Systematic review
“VR was the most utilized technology (17 studies), improving spatial understanding and prompting plan modifications in 32%-52% of cases (e.g., lung segmentectomies, TAVR).”
32%-52%
Singh R et al. · Updates in surgery · 2026
Multi-specialty · Systematic review
“Typical limitations were small participant sizes, non-standardized outcome measures, and a lack of unified assessment frameworks.”
Ke Y, Hu K · MedComm – Future Medicine · 2025
Multi-specialty · Narrative review
“However, current limitations include insufficient computational and display capabilities of head‐mounted displays, inadequate accuracy in spatial registration, high costs, workflow complexity, and unresolved ethical concerns.”
Avakian A · Cureus · 2025
Multi-specialty · Narrative review
Noguera Aguilar JF · Cirugia espanola · 2024
Multi-specialty · Narrative review
Queisner M, Eisenträger K · Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024
Multi-specialty · Systematic review
“Notably, surgical planning using VR led to more frequent changes in surgical plans compared to planning with other visualization methods when surgeons reassessed their initial plans.”
Kantor T et al. · Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024
Multi-specialty · Narrative review
“However, adoption faces challenges such as high costs, infrastructure needs, and regulatory hurdles.”
Ferrier-Barbut É et al. · Interaction Homme-Machine · 2023
Multi-specialty · Systematic review · n: 12 studies
“Regarding training, even if there is evidence demonstrating learning benefits, these do not seem to transpose to real environments.”
Sugimoto M, Sueyoshi T · Medical Research Archives · 2023
Multi-specialty · Narrative review
Lan L et al. · Surgical innovation · 2023
Multi-specialty · Systematic review
“Preoperative iVR did not significantly improve patient-specific outcomes of operative time, blood loss, complications, and length of stay, but may decrease fluoroscopy time.”
Vervoorn MT et al. · JMIR serious games · 2023
Multi-specialty · Narrative review
“Limitations primarily seem to be related to constraints associated with head-mounted display.”
Laskay NMB et al. · World journal of surgery · 2023
Multi-specialty · Systematic review
“This review demonstrates that time spent rehearsing and visualizing patient-specific anatomical relationships in VR may improve operative efficiency and communication across multiple surgical specialties.”
Pires F et al. · Journal of digital imaging · 2021
Multi-specialty · Narrative review
“Our results suggest that prerequisites such as real-time performance and minimum latency pose the greatest limitations for clinical adoption and need to be addressed.”
Rüger C et al. · Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2020
Multi-specialty · Narrative review
“In preoperative planning XR can also offer advantages, although technical limitations often impede routine use; however, for cases of intraoperative use informative evaluation studies are mostly lacking, so that an assessment is not yet possible in a meaningful way.”
Gao Y et al. · Chinese medical sciences journal · 2019
Multi-specialty · Narrative review
Trioux A et al. · Image, Video, and Multidimensional Signal Processing Workshop · 2026
Multi-specialty · Technical development · n: 10 clinicians
“A subjective pilot study with 10 clinicians (4 experienced, 6 less experienced; roles: surgeons/trainees), conducted following ITU-R BT.500-15 methodology, reports consistently positive ratings (4.2-4.9/5 on a 5-point Likert scale) on perceived accuracy, responsiveness, and usefulness, indicating potential for clinical and educational scenarios.”
4.2-4.9/5
Oudeh A et al. · Preprints.org · 2026
Multi-specialty · Preprint (experience report)
“Segmentation-based visualization was implemented for preoperative planning in two patients with skull-based malignancies; the surgical team described the 3D workflow as useful for operative planning.”
Menon MM et al. · 2025 IEEE 6th India Council International Subsections Conference (INDISCON) · 2025
Multi-specialty · Technical development
Gomez de Cadiz A et al. · AHFE international · 2025
Multi-specialty · Conference paper
Faludi B et al. · International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025
Multi-specialty · Technical development
“We show that the presented approach can avoid dropped frames at the typical update rate of 90 frames per second of a desktop-based VR system and, therefore, provide a comfortable user experience even in the presence of more than twenty individual volumes.”
Cremese R et al. · Scientific reports · 2025
Multi-specialty · Technical development
Martín Cubillo C et al. · Studies in health technology and informatics · 2025
Multi-specialty · Technical development
“Deployed in routine clinical workflows at La Paz University Hospital, the platform has demonstrated reduced preoperative planning times and improved surgical accuracy.”
Raisamo R et al. · Studies in health technology and informatics · 2025
Multi-specialty · Experience report
“The results demonstrate that XR technologies can improve medical data understanding, for example, by providing efficient interaction techniques and clear visualizations.”
Rus G et al. · IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2024
Multi-specialty · Technical development
Prabhakaran S et al. · International Conference on Biomedical Engineering · 2024
Multi-specialty · Technical development
Ivanov VM et al. · Journal of personalized medicine · 2023
Multi-specialty · Case series · n: 11 patients
“The testing of the algorithm for the application of AR technology in the surgical treatment of primary and recurrent pelvic tumors demonstrated both a technical possibility and reproducibility of this algorithm and the AR technology itself in clinical practice.”
Zhang M et al. · arXiv (Cornell University) · 2022
Multi-specialty · Preprint (technical development)
Sharma D, Subramaniam KG · Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2022
Multi-specialty · Letter (no abstract)
Sánchez-Margallo JA et al. · Frontiers in Virtual Reality · 2021
Multi-specialty · Technical development · n: 1 patient (plus experimental model)
“The solution developed for medical training was considered a useful tool for training in urological anatomy, facilitating the translation of this knowledge to clinical practice.”
Pinter C et al. · IEEE transactions on medical robotics and bionics · 2020
Multi-specialty · Technical development
“SlicerVR is freely available under BSD type license as an extension to 3D Slicer and it has been downloaded over 7,800 times at the time of writing this article.”
7,800
Kumar RP et al. · Journal of biomedical informatics · 2020
Multi-specialty · Technical development
“Furthermore, our clinical use-cases demonstrate that the surgeons perceived the HoloLens to be useful, recommendable to other surgeons and also provided a definitive answer at a multi-disciplinary team meeting.”
Mast M et al. · Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI) · 2019
Multi-specialty · Technical development
El said SA et al. · International Journal of Computer Aided Engineering and Technology · 2017
Multi-specialty · Technical development
Srinivasan S et al. · Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 25 (ISMRM 2017), abstract 5545 · 2017
Multi-specialty · Conference abstract
“The current set-up enables visualization and perception of holograms with a margin tolerance of < 6 mm.”
< 6 mm
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.