The library holds 36 Plastic & reconstructive studies, published 2017–2026; 16 of them since 2024.
Study designs: 2 randomized trials, 2 comparative or prospective studies, 10 reviews and 22 case reports, case series and technical reports.
Quoted from the studies. Each question lists the studies that report on it.
Of 8 studies with a finding on this question: 5 report a positive finding, 3 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“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 ).”
Zhang 2023 · Randomized controlled trial · n: 58 patients
“Overall, preoperative planning using VR was easy to use, safe, more intuitive, and provided in a time-efficient manner, more information about perforant characteristics.”
Di Via Ioschpe 2023 · Validation study · n: 44 patients
“The findings indicate that AI-enhanced 3D imaging and immersive virtual communication platforms are valuable tools for integrative surgical case assessments.”
Obst 2025 · Feasibility study · n: 15 patients
Of 7 studies with a finding on this question: 3 report a positive finding, 4 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“Using different visualization settings, the spatial relationship of perforators to surrounding anatomical structures-especially the subcutaneous tissue and the Rectus Abdominis Muscle-can be understood more intuitively.”
Necker 2026 · Technical development
“The surgeons ranked VR higher than CTA in terms of better anatomical understanding and operative anatomical findings.”
Freidin 2023 · Case series · n: 30 patients
“The combination of Horos and Elements allows a better understanding of the ALT-free flap anatomy to virtually plan the surgery and to transfer the digital data to the Magic Leap Headset.”
Heredero 2022 · Technical note · n: 6 patients
Of 10 studies with a finding on this question: 8 report a positive finding, 2 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
Randomized trials: 1 trial on this question; 1 reported a positive finding.
“Flap harvest times averaged 52 and 68 min, respectively (P < 0.0001).”
Liu 2025 · Randomized controlled trial · n: 80 patients
“The MRI analysis time was significantly lower with the DIVA system than with the slice-based visualization for residents, practitioners, and subsequently the entire group (P < .001).”
El Beheiry 2021 · Comparative study
“XR use decreased operative time, with AR reducing intraoperative perforator localization time from 20 min using handheld Doppler US to 2.3 min.”
Zijlstra 2026 · Systematic review
Plastic & reconstructive studies on this questionAll specialties
Of 14 studies with a finding on this question: 9 report a positive finding, 2 mixed, 3 no significant difference. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“Recognition rates were 94.3% in the MR group and 82.0% in the CDU group (P = 0.008).”
Liu 2025 · Randomized controlled trial · n: 80 patients
“A correlation was found between the imaging modalities for unilateral (R = 0.96 (CI = 0.92, 0.98)) and bilateral (R = 0.93, (CI = 0.83, 0.97)) DIEP flap surgeries when comparing perforator location related to the umbilicus.”
Di Via Ioschpe 2023 · Validation study · n: 44 patients
“XR technologies were associated with improved accuracy in perforator identification, reduced operating times, and enhanced surgical planning.”
Ozmen 2025 · Systematic review
Of 4 studies with a finding on this question: 2 descriptive, 2 no significant difference. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“In the MR group, one flap developed an infection and another necrosis, while in the CDU group, one flap had a crisis, and two experienced necrosis.”
Liu 2025 · Randomized controlled trial · n: 80 patients
“There were no complications during the postoperative course.”
Nuri 2022 · Case report · n: 1 patient
Of 8 studies with a finding on this question: 2 report a positive finding, 6 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“Our technique can be performed by surgeons independently with a laptop and a Microsoft HoloLens, making CT angiography data more accessible and practical for use in plastic surgery.”
Necker 2026 · Technical development
“While the study demonstrates the feasibility of this approach, further research is needed to explore a broader application and impact of these technologies in global health.”
Obst 2025 · Feasibility study · n: 15 patients
“While preliminary results are promising, further large-scale studies are needed to establish efficacy, address limitations, and facilitate integration into clinical practice.”
Ozmen 2025 · Systematic review
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
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
Di Via Ioschpe A et al. · Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery · 2023
Plastic & reconstructive · Validation study · n: 44 patients
“A correlation was found between the imaging modalities for unilateral (R = 0.96 (CI = 0.92, 0.98)) and bilateral (R = 0.93, (CI = 0.83, 0.97)) DIEP flap surgeries when comparing perforator location related to the umbilicus.”
R = 0.96
El Beheiry M et al. · JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2021
Plastic & reconstructive · Comparative study
“The MRI analysis time was significantly lower with the DIVA system than with the slice-based visualization for residents, practitioners, and subsequently the entire group (P < .001).”
P < .001
Zijlstra K et al. · JPRAS open · 2026
Plastic & reconstructive · Systematic review
“XR use decreased operative time, with AR reducing intraoperative perforator localization time from 20 min using handheld Doppler US to 2.3 min.”
2.3 min
Ozmen BB et al. · Surgical innovation · 2025
Plastic & reconstructive · Systematic review
“XR technologies were associated with improved accuracy in perforator identification, reduced operating times, and enhanced surgical planning.”
Lacey H et al. · JPRAS open · 2025
Plastic & reconstructive · Systematic review
“Preoperative VR was associated with shorter operative times than conventional Doppler ultrasound (478±56.94 vs 606.29 ± 81.94 min, P<0.05).”
P<0.05
Heredero S et al. · Oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics of North America · 2025
Plastic & reconstructive · Narrative review
Rasmussen KH et al. · JPRAS open · 2025
Plastic & reconstructive · Systematic review
“Virtual reality demonstrated better visualization of patient-specific anatomy and was more time efficient than CT angiography.”
Sullivan J et al. · Journal of reconstructive microsurgery · 2024
Plastic & reconstructive · Narrative review
“VR has been shown to increase surgical precision and decrease operative time.”
Phan R et al. · Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2022
Plastic & reconstructive · Systematic review
“This, combined with a cost analysis, are the main obstructions to this technology being more widely adopted.”
Vles MD et al. · Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery · 2020
Plastic & reconstructive · Systematic review
“Intraoperative perforator identification in DIEP flap procedures was more accurate with AR compared to Doppler ultrasound.”
Sayadi LR et al. · Aesthetic surgery journal · 2019
Plastic & reconstructive · Systematic review
Kim Y et al. · Archives of plastic surgery · 2017
Plastic & reconstructive · Systematic review
Necker FN et al. · Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development
“Using different visualization settings, the spatial relationship of perforators to surrounding anatomical structures-especially the subcutaneous tissue and the Rectus Abdominis Muscle-can be understood more intuitively.”
Journal of burn care & research · 2025
Plastic & reconstructive · Conference abstract
“When the traces were aligned with the ground truth using ICP, the pass-through headset had the highest IOU (0.797), followed by the see-through headset (0.770), with both outperforming the control condition (0.763) in trace precision.”
0.797
Wei B et al. · Oral oncology · 2025
Plastic & reconstructive · Diagnostic accuracy study · n: 24 patients
“AR-Finder demonstrated a higher sensitivity of 97.5 % (95 % CI 85.3 %-99.9 %, p = 0.031) and an AUC of 0.90 (95 % CI 0.80-1.01, p = 0.035).”
97.5 %
Obst M et al. · JMIR formative research · 2025
Plastic & reconstructive · Feasibility study · n: 15 patients
“The process was time-efficient, with a total of under 8 minutes per case for data acquisition and model creation, and resource-efficient with surgeons reporting sufficient quality of smartphone-derived models.”
8 minutes
Unger M et al. · International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development · n: 21 participants
“The mean projection error is 10.3 ± 9.4 mm.”
10.3 ± 9.4 mm
Necker FN et al. · Surgical innovation · 2024
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical note · n: 4 patients
“In these sessions, surgeons discuss perforator anatomy and perforator selection strategies whilst comprehensively assessing the respective models.”
Pereira N et al. · Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery · 2024
Plastic & reconstructive · Letter (no abstract)
Shpitser IM et al. · Stomatologiia · 2024
Plastic & reconstructive · Feasibility study · n: 3 patients
“AR for microsurgical planning was performed in two inguinal regions and was 100% correlated with the results of high-frequency ultrasound, in the case of perforant vessels of the peroneal artery”
100%
Timóteo R et al. · Healthcare technology letters · 2024
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development
“The average time taken to mark each perforator is 7.7 ± 6.5 s, with an average absolute error of 6.8 ± 2.6 mm and an estimated average deviation of 3.6 ± 1.4 mm.”
7.7 ± 6.5 s
Freidin D et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023
Plastic & reconstructive · Case series · n: 30 patients
“In four cases, VR imaging modified the surgical strategy…”
Masterton G et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2023
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical note
“Although the authors did not use the HoloLens technology to make clinical decisions, they provide evidence of its accuracy and ease of use, offering a proof of concept.”
Berger MF et al. · Digital health · 2023
Plastic & reconstructive · Feasibility study
“The overall usability (SUS) was 67 ± 10 (=moderate to good).”
67 ± 10
De la Cruz-Ku G et al. · SAGE open medical case reports · 2023
Plastic & reconstructive · Case report · n: 1 patient
Seth I et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023
Plastic & reconstructive · Case series · n: 5 patients
“AR technology shows promise in enhancing perforator identification efficiency and deepening understanding of perforator trajectories during preoperative planning.”
Nuri T et al. · Microsurgery · 2022
Plastic & reconstructive · Case report · n: 1 patient
“There were no complications during the postoperative course.”
Egozi D et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical note
“We postulate that preoperative planning by the new Amplifier VR tool can increase a surgeon’s understanding of the patient’s individual anatomy and facilitate the complex task of choosing the optimal perforator for flap harvest.”
Heredero S et al. · Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical note · n: 6 patients
“The combination of Horos and Elements allows a better understanding of the ALT-free flap anatomy to virtually plan the surgery and to transfer the digital data to the Magic Leap Headset.”
Allison B et al. · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality · 2020
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development
Giacalone G et al. · Journal of clinical medicine · 2019
Plastic & reconstructive · Case report · n: 1 patient
“Based on the combined findings of this 3D model and lymphography with a fluorescent marker, a precise skin incision could be determined and one lymph vessel was anastomosed to a nearby vein.”
Amini S, Kersten-Oertel M · Healthcare technology letters · 2019
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development
“This method can be quicker than the traditional way and eliminates sizer implants from the process.”
Perkins SL et al. · 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct) · 2017
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical development
Bosc R et al. · Annales de chirurgie plastique et esthetique · 2017
Plastic & reconstructive · Technical note · n: 12 patients
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.