The library holds 47 Urology studies, published 2017–2026; 18 of them since 2024.
Study designs: 5 randomized trials, 8 comparative or prospective studies, 4 retrospective studies, 7 surveys and user studies, 6 reviews and 17 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: 6 report a positive finding, 2 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“In 86.8% of cases, surgeons preferred using AR models both before and during surgery, with 69.2% suggesting that AR could enhance procedural safety.”
Lasmanovich 2025 · Survey/user study
“Thirty-two urologists surveyed reported using 3D imaging for preoperative evaluation (84%) and to understand anatomy (75%), with 97% reporting clinical benefits and 85% indicating that it improved the quality of surgery.”
Kobayashi 2025 · Survey/user study
“As emerged from the Health-ITUES questionnaire, META_EXP covers an important role in the presurgical/surgical planning and decision-making process and appears to be useful for preoperative planning, with a median response of 4 and 5, respectively.”
Volpi 2024 · Survey/user study
Of 7 studies with a finding on this question: 6 report a positive finding, 1 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“Preoperative visualization of the iVR model resulted in a changed calyx of entry in 30% of cases.”
Cumpanas 2025 · Randomized controlled trial · n: 175 patients
“In 32% of intervention cases, the surgeons modified their operative plan based on the model.”
Shirk 2022 · Randomized controlled trial · n: 92 patients
“Six surgical approaches were changed based on the 3D VR images.”
McDonald 2021 · Prospective case series · n: 15 patients
Of 8 studies with a finding on this question: 8 report a positive finding. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“Two patients had distinctive renal vasculature related to the renal cancers which were not appreciated on routine scans but were well delineated by VR imaging studies.”
McDonald 2021 · Prospective case series · n: 15 patients
“Faculty surgeons' survey responses showed an improved understanding of the tumor location and shape with the addition of iVR (p < 0.05).”
Tapiero 2020 · Comparative study · n: 11 patients
“iVR improved surgeons' understanding of the optimal calix of entry and the stone's location, size, and orientation (p < 0.01).”
Parkhomenko 2019 · Prospective cohort with matched controls · n: 25 patients
Of 11 studies with a finding on this question: 6 report a positive finding, 1 mixed, 2 descriptive, 2 no significant difference. These reflect what each study's authors report.
Randomized trials: 2 trials on this question; 2 reported a positive finding.
“Analyses indicated statistically significant difference in ischemia time favoring RG (p = 0.045), with a mean difference of 3.8 minutes.”
Duarte 2026 · Randomized controlled trial · n: 45 patients
“For urologists treating complex renal tumors, MR technology can help them reduce the warm ischemia time (21.3 ± 4.0 vs 23.6 ± 5.9 minutes, p = 0.031), reconstruction time (15.4 ± 3.8 vs 17.2 ± 4.2 minutes, p = 0.034)”
Yang 2022 · Randomized controlled trial · n: 92 patients
“The evaluation time was shorter for HR (mean 1.7 vs. 3.4 min, p < 0.0001).”
Antonelli 2019 · Comparative study · n: 10 patients
Of 9 studies with a finding on this question: 7 report a positive finding, 1 mixed, 1 no significant difference. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“VR 3D models showed almost perfect agreement with the final histopathology for extraprostatic extension (EPE) (κ = 0.88; accuracy 94.3%) and perfect agreement for SVI (κ = 1.00).”
Azhar 2026 · Prospective cohort · n: 35 patients
“Mixed reality 3D visualization technology is beneficial for accurately diagnosing and planning surgical treatment for PFUI.”
Hua 2025 · Preprint (prospective cohort) · n: 32 patients
“Finally, use of 3D MR led to a higher success rate for renal puncture at the first attempt (100% vs 50%; p = 0.032).”
Porpiglia 2022 · Comparative study · n: 10 patients
Of 12 studies with a finding on this question: 5 report a positive finding, 2 mixed, 1 descriptive, 4 no significant difference. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“The CT+iVR group had a significant improvement in absolute stone-free rate (33.70% vs 20.22%, P = .043) and overall < 4 mm remnant rate (62.79% vs 48.20%, P = .044).”
Cumpanas 2025 · Randomized controlled trial · n: 175 patients
“MR-assisted surgery can reduce the incidence of intraoperative complications and improve perioperative outcomes, and MR may be a good preoperative tool for planning complex renal tumor surgery.”
Yang 2022 · Randomized controlled trial · n: 92 patients
“There were no complications or positive margins noted in the VR group.”
Shirk 2019 · Comparative study · n: 60 patients
Of 8 studies with a finding on this question: 3 report a positive finding, 1 mixed, 4 descriptive. These reflect what each study's authors report.
“This RCT demonstrates the feasibility and safety of MIXREAL in RAPN, as well as its potential to support intraoperative decision-making.”
Duarte 2026 · Randomized controlled trial · n: 45 patients
“This proof-of-concept case demonstrates successful integration of HA3D virtual models and AR into R-RPLND workflow, potentially enhancing anatomical visualization, surgical planning, and procedural safety.”
Angerer 2026 · Case report · n: 1 patient
“We demonstrate how this immersive virtual reality experience overcomes the barriers of distance and how the quality of surgical planning is enriched by a great sense of "being there", even if virtually.”
Checcucci 2024 · Case report · n: 1 patient
Duarte DM Junior et al. · International braz j urol · 2026
Urology · Randomized controlled trial · n: 45 patients
“Analyses indicated statistically significant difference in ischemia time favoring RG (p = 0.045), with a mean difference of 3.8 minutes.”
p = 0.045
Cumpanas AD et al. · The Journal of urology · 2025
Urology · Randomized controlled trial · n: 175 patients
“Preoperative visualization of the iVR model resulted in a changed calyx of entry in 30% of cases.”
30%
Yang Y et al. · Journal of endourology · 2022
Urology · Randomized controlled trial · n: 92 patients
“For urologists treating complex renal tumors, MR technology can help them reduce the warm ischemia time (21.3 ± 4.0 vs 23.6 ± 5.9 minutes, p = 0.031), reconstruction time (15.4 ± 3.8 vs 17.2 ± 4.2 minutes, p = 0.034)”
p = 0.031
Shirk JD et al. · The Journal of urology · 2022
Urology · Randomized controlled trial · n: 92 patients
“In 32% of intervention cases, the surgeons modified their operative plan based on the model.”
32%
Shirk JD et al. · JAMA network open · 2019
Urology · Randomized controlled trial · n: 92 patients
“When controlling for case complexity and other covariates, patients whose surgical planning involved 3-D VR models showed differences in operative time (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.37-2.70; estimated OR, 2.47), estimated blood loss (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.04-3.78; estimated OR, 4.56), clamp time (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 0.79-3.23; estimated OR, 11.22), and length of hospital stay (OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.59-5.14; estimated OR, 5.43).”
Azhar RA et al. · BMC urology · 2026
Urology · Prospective cohort · n: 35 patients
“VR 3D models showed almost perfect agreement with the final histopathology for extraprostatic extension (EPE) (κ = 0.88; accuracy 94.3%) and perfect agreement for SVI (κ = 1.00).”
κ = 0.88
Hua Y et al. · Research Square · 2025
Urology · Preprint (prospective cohort) · n: 32 patients
“Compared with the control group, the mixed reality technology group showed an average operative time reduction of about 12 minutes, although this difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05)”
12 minutes
Porpiglia F et al. · European urology · 2022
Urology · Comparative study · n: 10 patients
“Matched pair analysis with the standard ECIRS group revealed a significantly shorter radiation exposure time for the 3D MR group (p < 0.001) even though the puncture time was longer in comparison to the standard group (p < 0.001).”
p < 0.001
McDonald M, D Shirk J · JSLS · 2021
Urology · Prospective case series · n: 15 patients
“Six surgical approaches were changed based on the 3D VR images.”
Tapiero S et al. · Journal of endourology · 2020
Urology · Comparative study · n: 11 patients
“The combination of CT+iVR was an independent predictor of improved overlap vs CT alone (odds ratio 2.22, 95% confidence interval 1.04-4.78, p = 0.039).”
odds ratio 2.22
Parkhomenko E et al. · Journal of endourology · 2019
Urology · Prospective cohort with matched controls · n: 25 patients
“iVR altered the surgical approach in 10 (40%) cases.”
10 (40%)
Antonelli A et al. · Urologia internationalis · 2019
Urology · Comparative study · n: 10 patients
“HR showed a higher inter-observer agreement, reaching a good level (k > 0.6) for almost all the anatomical details considered.”
k > 0.6
Shirk JD et al. · Urology · 2019
Urology · Comparative study · n: 60 patients
“When controlling for case complexity and surgeon, patients with 3-dimensional, virtual reality-assisted surgical planning had significantly lower operative time (141 minutes vs 201 minutes, P < .0001), clamp time (13.2 minutes vs 17.4 minutes, P = .0274)”
P < .0001
Zou XC et al. · World journal of surgical oncology · 2026
Urology · Retrospective cohort · n: 82 patients
“Postoperative statistics indicated that the operation time for the MR group was significantly shorter than that of the control group (102.00(98.00 103.00) minutes vs. 103.50(101.00 106.75) minutes, p = 0.017).”
p = 0.017
Heera T et al. · Pediatric surgery international · 2026
Urology · Retrospective case series · n: 20 patients
“The mean usefulness score was: anatomical delineation 3.9, haptic tools 3.1, surgical planning 3.6, student training 4.2 and patient counselling 4.1.”
surgical planning 3.6
Lanfranchi G et al. · Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
Urology · Retrospective case series · n: 6 patients
“The high depth perception and precision in the orientation of the arteries and veins to the parenchyma changed the intraoperative decision-making process in five patients.”
Zou XC et al. · Frontiers in oncology · 2024
Urology · Retrospective cohort · n: 68 patients
“All patients had negative resection margins, indicating equivalent therapeutic outcomes between the two groups.”
Lasmanovich R et al. · Urolithiasis · 2025
Urology · Survey/user study
“The orientation of adjacent organs was better understood using AR (5 vs. 4, p = 0.004).”
p = 0.004
Kobayashi S et al. · Asian journal of endoscopic surgery · 2025
Urology · Survey/user study
“Thirty-two urologists surveyed reported using 3D imaging for preoperative evaluation (84%) and to understand anatomy (75%), with 97% reporting clinical benefits and 85% indicating that it improved the quality of surgery.”
97%
Volpi G et al. · Therapeutic advances in urology · 2024
Urology · Survey/user study
“As emerged from the Health-ITUES questionnaire, META_EXP covers an important role in the presurgical/surgical planning and decision-making process and appears to be useful for preoperative planning, with a median response of 4 and 5, respectively.”
Amparore D et al. · Minerva urology and nephrology · 2022
Urology · Survey/user study
“HoloLens (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) was perceived as the best imaging technology for the surgical planning (50% for prostate and 60% for kidney)”
60%
Checcucci E et al. · Minerva urology and nephrology · 2021
Urology · Survey/user study
“High satisfaction toward the potential role of this technology in surgical planning and understanding of surgical complexity (both scored 9/10) were expressed.”
9/10
Velazco-Garcia JD et al. · The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery · 2021
Urology · Survey/user study
“The studies indicated that using a joystick improved the interactive capacity and enabled operator to plan MRgPBx in less time.”
Wellens LM et al. · JAMA network open · 2019
Urology · Survey/user study · n: 10 patients
“In this study, the 3-D kidney models were associated with improved anatomical understanding among the surgeons and can be helpful in future preoperative planning of nephron-sparing surgery for Wilms tumors.”
Lo CY et al. · BJUI compass · 2026
Urology · Systematic review
“The MR-assisted group had modest improvements in SFR compared to the control group (RR = 1.09; 95% CI 1.00-1.18; p = 0.044; I 2 = 17.3%, p = 0.29).”
RR = 1.09
Wang VL et al. · Current urology reports · 2025
Urology · Narrative review
Checcucci E et al. · World journal of urology · 2022
Urology · Narrative review
“Focusing on surgery, this tool revealed to be useful both for surgical planning, allowed to achieve a better surgical performance, and for surgical navigation by using augmented reality and mixed reality systems aimed to assist the surgeon in real time during the intervention.”
Fujihara A, Ukimura O · World journal of urology · 2022
Urology · Narrative review
Checcucci E et al. · Current opinion in urology · 2020
Urology · Systematic review
“in a virtual reality setting the preoperative planning was enhanced by using 3D virtual models in a mixed reality environment”
Wake N et al. · Urology · 2020
Urology · Systematic review
“Existing evidence demonstrates improvement in clinical outcomes, surgical planning and intra-operative guidance, as well as training.”
Angerer M et al. · The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery · 2026
Urology · Case report · n: 1 patient
“HA3D modeling enabled precise preoperative identification of a critical renal arterial branch adjacent to the tumor, facilitating safe dissection.”
Schulder et al. et al. · Journal of Urology (AUA 2025 video abstract) · 2025
Urology · Conference abstract (video) · n: 1 patient · Used Elucis
Liu Y et al. · Urology · 2025
Urology · Feasibility study · n: 15 patients
“The consistency rate between preoperative planning and intraoperative completion was 87.6%.”
87.6%
Checcucci E et al. · European urology · 2024
Urology · Case report · n: 1 patient
“We demonstrate how this immersive virtual reality experience overcomes the barriers of distance and how the quality of surgical planning is enriched by a great sense of "being there", even if virtually.”
Banerjee A et al. · BMJ case reports · 2024
Urology · Case report · n: 1 patient
“Advances like VR and 3D printing help surgeons plan better for complex surgeries like bilateral NSS.”
Emmerling M et al. · Urology Video Journal · 2023
Urology · Case report (video)
Paludo AO et al. · European Urology Open Science · 2021
Urology · Conference abstract · n: 1 patient
Wake N et al. · 3D printing in medicine · 2021
Urology · Technical note
Okada A et al. · Journal of Urology · 2020
Urology · Conference abstract
Xie L et al. · Journal of Urology · 2020
Urology · Conference abstract
Jefferson F et al. · Journal of Urology · 2019
Urology · Conference abstract · n: 7 patients
Yoshida S et al. · International journal of urology · 2019
Urology · Technical note
Yamada Y et al. · International journal of urology · 2019
Urology · Technical note
Parkhomenko E et al. · Journal of Urology · 2018
Urology · Conference abstract
Mojica CM et al. · Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 26 (ISMRM 2018), abstract 4414 · 2018
Urology · Conference abstract
Wake N et al. · Urology · 2018
Urology · Case report (video) · n: 1 patient
“The application of 3D printed and AR models is safe and feasible and can influence surgical decisions.”
Wake N et al. · Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 25 (ISMRM 2017), abstract 4948 · 2017
Urology · Conference abstract
“These models may alter the surgical plan, and could promote both nephron-sparing surgery and preservation of healthy parenchyma, as surgeons gain a better visualization of the size and location of a tumor in relation to normal tissue and vital structures.”
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.