Purpose: To perform a systematic literature review on the clinical impact of augmented reality (AR) for urological interventions. Methods: As of June 21, 2018, systematic literature review was performed via Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018102194). Only full text articles in English were included, without time restrictions. Articles were considered if they reported on the use of AR during urological intervention and the impact on the surgical outcomes. The risk of bias and the quality of each study included were independently assessed using the standard Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions Tool (ROBINS-I). Results: 131 articles were identified. 102 remained after duplicate removal and were critically reviewed for evidence synthesis. 20 studies reporting on the outcomes of the use of AR during urological interventions in a clinical setting were considered. Given the mostly non-comparative design of the studies identified, the evidence synthesis was performed in a descriptive and narrative manner. Only one comparative study was found, with the remaining 19 items being single-arm observational studies. Based on the existing evidence, we are unable to state that AR improves the outcomes of urological interventions. The major limitation of AR-assisted surgery is inaccuracy in registration, translating into a poor navigation precision. Conclusions: To date, there is limited evidence showing superior therapeutic benefits of AR-guided surgery when compared with the conventional surgical approach to the respective disease.

Systematic review of augmented reality in urological interventions: the evidences of an impact on surgical outcomes are yet to come

Bertolo R.;
2019-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: To perform a systematic literature review on the clinical impact of augmented reality (AR) for urological interventions. Methods: As of June 21, 2018, systematic literature review was performed via Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018102194). Only full text articles in English were included, without time restrictions. Articles were considered if they reported on the use of AR during urological intervention and the impact on the surgical outcomes. The risk of bias and the quality of each study included were independently assessed using the standard Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions Tool (ROBINS-I). Results: 131 articles were identified. 102 remained after duplicate removal and were critically reviewed for evidence synthesis. 20 studies reporting on the outcomes of the use of AR during urological interventions in a clinical setting were considered. Given the mostly non-comparative design of the studies identified, the evidence synthesis was performed in a descriptive and narrative manner. Only one comparative study was found, with the remaining 19 items being single-arm observational studies. Based on the existing evidence, we are unable to state that AR improves the outcomes of urological interventions. The major limitation of AR-assisted surgery is inaccuracy in registration, translating into a poor navigation precision. Conclusions: To date, there is limited evidence showing superior therapeutic benefits of AR-guided surgery when compared with the conventional surgical approach to the respective disease.
2019
Augmented reality
Computer-assisted surgery
Image-guided surgery
Surgical navigation
Urology
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/1112486
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 13
  • Scopus 39
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 34
social impact