19 Neurosurgery studies in the library address this question.
“Mean holographic preparation time was 36 +/- 12 minutes.”
Colombo 2025 · Comparative study · n: 10 cases (plus matched controls)
“The overall planning time (AR = 119 ± 44 s, conventional = 187 ± 56 s) was significantly reduced through the adoption of the AR workflow”
Van Gestel 2023 · Prospective cohort · n: 20 patients
“Moreover, the assessment duration was significantly shorter with the fusion imaging technique than with the three-dimensional MR (P<0.05).”
Wang 2021 · Prospective case series · n: 8 patients
“The mean procedure time was significantly lower for the VR group compared with the control group (247.80 minutes vs 328.27 minutes; p = 0.0115), particularly for the patients with a CC score of 2 (95% CI, p = 0.0064).”
Steineke 2021 · Retrospective cohort · n: 21 patients
Of 19 studies with a finding on this question: 6 report a positive finding, 1 mixed, 7 descriptive, 5 no significant difference. These reflect what each study's authors report.
Study designs: 7 comparative or prospective studies, 5 retrospective studies and 7 case reports, case series and technical reports.
Colombo E et al. · Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2026
Neurosurgery · Comparative study · n: 50 cases (25 MxR, 25 control)
“The mean craniotomy diameter and mean surgical preparation time did not differ significantly.”
Colombo E et al. · World neurosurgery · 2025
Neurosurgery · Comparative study · n: 10 cases (plus matched controls)
“Mean holographic preparation time was 36 +/- 12 minutes.”
36 +/- 12 minutes
Bhatia S et al. · World neurosurgery · 2025
Neurosurgery · Validation study · n: 7 patients
“MR mapping of the STA was faster than Doppler mapping (11.3 ± 1.47 vs. 67.2 ± 17.6 seconds; P = 0.001).”
P = 0.001
Kim NC et al. · World neurosurgery · 2023
Neurosurgery · Comparative study · n: 30 patients (17 VR, 13 control)
“No significant difference were found in the procedure time or craniotomy size between the 2 groups.”
Van Gestel F et al. · Frontiers in neurology · 2023
Neurosurgery · Prospective cohort · n: 20 patients
“The overall planning time (AR = 119 ± 44 s, conventional = 187 ± 56 s) was significantly reduced through the adoption of the AR workflow”
AR = 119 ± 44 s, conventional = 187 ± 56 s
Colombo E et al. · Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2023
Neurosurgery · Prospective cohort · n: 107 cases
“Mean hologram segmentation time was 39.4 ± 20.4 minutes.”
39.4 ± 20.4 minutes
Wang B et al. · Clinical neurology and neurosurgery · 2021
Neurosurgery · Prospective case series · n: 8 patients
“Moreover, the assessment duration was significantly shorter with the fusion imaging technique than with the three-dimensional MR (P<0.05).”
P<0.05
Zanuttini L et al. · Acta neurochirurgica · 2025
Neurosurgery · Retrospective case series · n: 9 patients (10 procedures)
“The additional planning time for segmentation averaged 45 min.”
45 min
Greuter L et al. · Frontiers in surgery · 2025
Neurosurgery · Retrospective cohort · n: 159 patients
“Operative time was shorter in the VR group but lacked statistical significance”
Najera E et al. · Neurosurgical focus · 2024
Neurosurgery · Retrospective case series · n: 10 patients
“The mean surgical duration was approximately 5 hours 11 minutes, with a mean intraoperative blood loss of 507.5 ml.”
Fabrig OD et al. · Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery · 2024
Neurosurgery · Retrospective case series · n: 26 patients
“The VR planning was well integrated into the clinical workflow, and imaging processing time was 30 to 40 minutes.”
30 to 40 minutes
Steineke TC, Barbery D · Neurosurgical focus · 2021
Neurosurgery · Retrospective cohort · n: 21 patients
“The mean procedure time was significantly lower for the VR group compared with the control group (247.80 minutes vs 328.27 minutes; p = 0.0115), particularly for the patients with a CC score of 2 (95% CI, p = 0.0064).”
p = 0.0115
Haegler J et al. · Brain sciences · 2026
Neurosurgery · Case series · n: 29 patients
“The 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.”
40.6 ± 10.3 min
Spiegler P et al. · Virtual reality · 2025
Neurosurgery · Technical development
“The system reduces the surgical planning time by 91%.”
91%
Konovalov A et al. · Surgical neurology international · 2025
Neurosurgery · Case series · n: 20 patients
“Preoperative modeling required 15.3 ± 5.1 min, while AR navigation averaged 12.7 ± 3.2 min.”
15.3 ± 5.1 min
Jean WC et al. · Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2024
Neurosurgery · Case series · n: 100 cases
“Comparing the 17 pairs of matched MxR and non-MxR cases, no statistically significant differences exist in the groups regarding blood loss, length of stay nor duration of surgery.”
Wu Y et al. · Cureus · 2024
Neurosurgery · Case series · n: 3 patients
“However, we observe that substantial time is required to set up the AR system prior to each clinical case discussion by the neurosurgical team.”
Rios-Vicil CI et al. · Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2022
Neurosurgery · Case report · n: 1 patient
“Excellent cosmetic results, decreased operative time, and a feasible workflow were achieved.”
Jean WC, Singh A · Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2020
Neurosurgery · Case report (video) · n: 1 patient
“The three-dimensional renderings are quick to set up (15 min), and the examination of the anatomy is useful for choosing the surgical approach.”
15 min
All neurosurgery 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.