Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2025

Mixed Reality Assisted Radical Endoscopic Thyroidectomy
Published on: January 31, 2025
Evaluation of Mixed Reality Technologies for Remote Feedback and Guidance During Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy
Vivek Nithipalan1, Tyler Holler2, Nathan Schuler2
1University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY.
Objective:
To compare equivalency of remote to in-person training during simulated transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, we combined three technologies (mixed reality [MR] software, smart glasses, and hydrogel simulation model). Taken together, telemonitoring harnesses data streaming to provide real-time supervision and technical assistance for surgical procedures from an expert at a remote geographical location.
Methods:
Nineteen students were randomized into two groups (MR-first and in-person-first) and proctored to measure prostate volume and perform 14-biopsies over seven sessions: pretest, two MR/in-person-guided training sessions, mid-test, crossover into two in-person/MR-guided training sessions, and post-test. MR sessions utilized Vuzix smart glasses with MR software (HelpLightning) to share the student's first-person perspective and Zoom to project the ultrasound screen to a remote instructor. Training and test sessions utilized single-color and seven-color prostate models, respectively. Accuracy of biopsy cores from test sessions were compared. Perception of instruction following each training session using 5-point Likert scales across five domains was assessed. Preference of instruction modality was assessed qualitatively.
Results:
Comparison of mid-test performance following two training sessions was similar across the two groups (MR-first 63.8% vs in-person-first 57.6%, P = .340). Following crossover, difference in post-test performance of the MR-first group and the in-person-first group approached significance (MR-first 80.2% vs in-person-first 70.8%, P = .050). Student evaluation of MR and in-person instruction following training sessions was similar across the five metrics.
Conclusion:
MR-based remote learning is equally effective when compared to traditional in-person instruction.

