The library holds 33 Thoracic studies, published 2018–2026; 14 of them since 2024.
Study designs: 4 comparative or prospective studies, 3 retrospective studies, 1 survey or user study, 5 reviews and 20 case reports, case series and technical reports.
Quoted from the studies. Each question lists the studies that report on it.
Of 5 studies with a finding on this question: 2 report a positive finding, 1 descriptive, 2 no significant difference. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“UEQ scores showed high hedonic quality (Stimulation = 2.19, Novelty = 2.69) and positive pragmatic usability (Efficiency = 1.13, Dependability = 1.63).”
Schnorr 2025 · Retrospective case series · n: 8 patients
“A preliminary user study of the system indicates it is efficient, robust, and user-friendly for planning optimal trocar placement, with a great promise for clinical application while offering potentially valuable insights for the development of other surgical VR systems.”
Harirpoush 2024 · Technical development
“Furthermore, a VR-based intervention may be a useful option in such cases.”
Torii 2022 · Case report · n: 1 patient
Of 4 studies with a finding on this question: 4 report a positive finding. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“Surgical planning differed significantly, with VR prompting more lobectomy recommendations (57 % vs. 50 %, p = 0.046).”
Zalepugas 2025 · Comparative study · n: 14 patients
“After supplemental VR visualization, the surgical plan was adjusted in 52%”
Bakhuis 2023 · Prospective cohort · n: 50 patients
“If the patients would have been operated, adding the 3D VR tool to the preoperative workup would have resulted in changing the surgical strategy (i.e. lobectomy versus segmentectomy) in 4 cases.”
Bakhuis 2022 · Feasibility study · n: 5 patients
Of 6 studies with a finding on this question: 6 report a positive finding. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“HMD-VR enables precise spatial mapping of complex pediatric pulmonary anatomy, facilitating safe thoracoscopic segmentectomies even for multi-segmental lesions.”
Wang 2025 · Retrospective case series · n: 19 patients
“Workspace perception was favorable (mean 4.9/6), and cybersickness remained low.AI-enhanced VR planning enables interdisciplinary collaboration and can improve spatial understanding in complex chest wall surgery.”
Schnorr 2025 · Retrospective case series · n: 8 patients
“VR enhanced procedural planning by improving airway assessment, optimising valve sizing, and reducing cognitive load, leading to increased efficiency and operator confidence.”
Okachi 2025 · Case report · n: 1 patient
Of 7 studies with a finding on this question: 5 report a positive finding, 1 descriptive, 1 no significant difference. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“VR required longer evaluation times (203.2 ± 117.4 s vs. 124.1 ± 69.7 s, p < 0.001) but demonstrated higher prediction accuracy for the surgical procedure (95 % vs. 84 %).”
Zalepugas 2025 · Comparative study · n: 14 patients
“The mean difference between the number of artery branches detected by surgery and CT images was 0.31 ± 0.98, whereas it was 0.09 ± 0.37 between surgery and HGs (p = 0.433).”
Petrella 2024 · Validation study · n: 52 patients
“Chest wall resection planning was more accurate when surgeons used virtual reality vs computed tomography analysis (28.6% vs 18.3%, P = .018), and this was particularly true in the resident surgeon group (27.4% vs 8.3%, P = .0025).”
Thumerel 2022 · Comparative study
Of 5 studies with a finding on this question: 1 mixed, 4 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“Conversion occurred in 10/39 SI cases and no VR cases (p = 0.045); intraoperative complications occurred in 5/39 and 0/11 (p = 0.20), and postoperative complications in 6/39 and 0/11 (p = 0.16).”
Pierucci 2026 · Retrospective cohort · n: 50 patients
“Pathologic examination confirmed radical resection in 49 patients (98%).”
Bakhuis 2023 · Prospective cohort · n: 50 patients
“No intraoperative complications related to VR or AR were observed.”
Veit 2026 · Case series · n: 35 patients
Of 10 studies with a finding on this question: 5 report a positive finding, 4 descriptive, 1 no significant difference. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“The integrated VR-guided workflow was feasible and associated with favorable perioperative signals.”
Pierucci 2026 · Retrospective cohort · n: 50 patients
“There are many areas where VR planning is having an impact on daily clinical practice, especially in the congenital cardiac surgery and sub-lobar lung resections, where surgeons have touted VR planning as the biggest advancement since the advent of CT scans in the 1970s (67).”
Bakhuis 2023 · Narrative review
“Combined VR/AR was used in 77% of cases, whereas 22% underwent VR-only planning due to early connectivity and AR calibration limitations.”
Veit 2026 · Case series · n: 35 patients
Zalepugas D et al. · Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
Thoracic · Comparative study · n: 14 patients
“Surgical planning differed significantly, with VR prompting more lobectomy recommendations (57 % vs. 50 %, p = 0.046).”
p = 0.046
Petrella F et al. · European radiology experimental · 2024
Thoracic · Validation study · n: 52 patients
“The mean difference between the number of artery branches detected by surgery and CT images was 0.31 ± 0.98, whereas it was 0.09 ± 0.37 between surgery and HGs (p = 0.433).”
p = 0.433
Bakhuis W et al. · The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2023
Thoracic · Prospective cohort · n: 50 patients
“After supplemental VR visualization, the surgical plan was adjusted in 52%”
52%
Thumerel M et al. · The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2022
Thoracic · Comparative study
“Chest wall resection planning was more accurate when surgeons used virtual reality vs computed tomography analysis (28.6% vs 18.3%, P = .018), and this was particularly true in the resident surgeon group (27.4% vs 8.3%, P = .0025).”
P = .018
Pierucci UM et al. · Surgical endoscopy · 2026
Thoracic · Retrospective cohort · n: 50 patients
“Median operative time was 183 versus 248 min (p = 0.42).”
p = 0.42
Wang Y et al. · BMC pediatrics · 2025
Thoracic · Retrospective case series · n: 19 patients
“All procedures (100%) were completed thoracoscopically without conversion.”
100%
Schnorr P et al. · Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie · 2025
Thoracic · Retrospective case series · n: 8 patients
“Planning exceeded resection in 50% of cases by up to 24% and one case (12.5%) showed a large overestimation in VR.”
50%
Kudo Y et al. · Asian journal of endoscopic surgery · 2026
Thoracic · Survey/user study
“For XR, awareness was moderate, but adoption remained limited (8%).”
8%
Pohlman A et al. · Journal of thoracic disease · 2025
Thoracic · Narrative review
“Currently, the primary limitations are varying accuracy of models, available evidence for use, uptake by surgeons, and cost of the technology.”
Bakhuis W et al. · Shanghai Chest · 2023
Thoracic · Narrative review
“There are many areas where VR planning is having an impact on daily clinical practice, especially in the congenital cardiac surgery and sub-lobar lung resections, where surgeons have touted VR planning as the biggest advancement since the advent of CT scans in the 1970s (67).”
Feodorovici P et al. · Zentralblatt fur Chirurgie · 2023
Thoracic · Narrative review
Sadeghi AH et al. · The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2022
Thoracic · Narrative review
Cao C, Cerfolio RJ · Thoracic surgery clinics · 2019
Thoracic · Narrative review
Veit T et al. · The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2026
Thoracic · Case series · n: 35 patients
“Combined VR/AR was used in 77% of cases, whereas 22% underwent VR-only planning due to early connectivity and AR calibration limitations.”
77%
Kuckelman J et al. · American journal of surgery · 2026
Thoracic · Editorial (no abstract)
Suzuki T et al. · Pediatrics international · 2026
Thoracic · Case report
Bakhuis W. · Erasmus University Rotterdam (PhD thesis) · 2025
Thoracic · Thesis
Okachi S et al. · Respirology case reports · 2025
Thoracic · Case report · n: 1 patient
“VR enhanced procedural planning by improving airway assessment, optimising valve sizing, and reducing cognitive load, leading to increased efficiency and operator confidence.”
Ujiie H et al. · Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
Thoracic · Technical development
“The VR system enabled precise visualization of pulmonary structures and lesion relations, enhancing surgical safety and accuracy.”
Harirpoush A et al. · Healthcare technology letters · 2024
Thoracic · Technical development
“A preliminary user study of the system indicates it is efficient, robust, and user-friendly for planning optimal trocar placement, with a great promise for clinical application while offering potentially valuable insights for the development of other surgical VR systems.”
Omori T et al. · Kyobu geka. The Japanese journal of thoracic surgery · 2023
Thoracic · Experience report
Romero Lara DP et al. · World journal for pediatric & congenital heart surgery · 2023
Thoracic · Case series · n: 3 patients
“The interaction within the VR environment allowed for collaboration of the surgical plan between surgical staff and enhancement of the radiologist-surgeon communication, while procedural simulation with 3D printing prototypes allowed for refining technical abilities for the surgical interventions.”
Bakhuis W et al. · Multimedia manual of cardiothoracic surgery · 2023
Thoracic · Case report (video/image) · n: 1 patient
Feodorovici P et al. · Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2023
Thoracic · Technical note · n: 2 patients
“Leveraging the capabilities of 3-dimensional (3D) imaging, real-time visualization, and collaborative VR environments, surgeons gain enhanced anatomical insights and can develop predictive surgical strategies.”
Peek JJ et al. · The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2022
Thoracic · Case report · n: 1 patient
Pelizzo G et al. · Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
Thoracic · Case series
“The preoperative VR HMD evaluation allowed a navigation into the malformation with the aim to explore, interact, and make the surgeon more confident and skilled to answer to the traps.”
Siboni S et al. · BMJ case reports · 2022
Thoracic · Case report · n: 1 patient
“We report the successful endoscopic closure of a post-radiotherapy TOF using preprocedural CT scan with holographic three-dimensional reconstruction and an Amplatzer atrial septal device.”
Torii A et al. · Respiratory medicine case reports · 2022
Thoracic · Case report · n: 1 patient
“Furthermore, a VR-based intervention may be a useful option in such cases.”
Bakhuis W et al. · European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2022
Thoracic · Feasibility study · n: 5 patients
“If the patients would have been operated, adding the 3D VR tool to the preoperative workup would have resulted in changing the surgical strategy (i.e. lobectomy versus segmentectomy) in 4 cases.”
4 cases
Ujiie H et al. · Journal of thoracic disease · 2021
Thoracic · Technical development
“The 3D anatomic structure of pulmonary vessels and a clear vision into the space between the lesion and adjacent tissues were successfully appreciated during preoperative simulation.”
Sadeghi AH et al. · JTCVS techniques · 2021
Thoracic · Feasibility study · n: 10 patients
“PulmoVR was successfully applied as a supplementary imaging tool to perform video-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomies.”
Perkins SL et al. · The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2020
Thoracic · Technical development
“Mixed-reality visualization during surgical planning may facilitate accurate and rapid identification of small lung lesions during minimally invasive surgeries and reduce the need for additional invasive preoperative localization procedures.”
Tang YF, Xiao G · Chin J Thorac Surg(Electronic Edition) · 2018
Thoracic · Case series · n: 2 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.