Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 22, 2026

Pedicle Screw Placement Using an Augmented Reality Head-Mounted Display in a Porcine Model
Published on: May 24, 2024
Usability Study of Augmented Reality Visualization Modalities on Localization Accuracy in the Head and Neck:
Yao Li1,2, Gijs Luijten3,4,5, Christina Gsaxner3,5
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse 30, Aachen, 52074, Germany, 49 2418088231.
Background:
Augmented reality head-mounted displays could overcome the spatial dissociation between medical imaging and the surgical field, which may be particularly important in anatomically dense regions, such as the head and neck. Although many head-mounted displays offer markerless inside-out tracking at a fraction of the cost of navigation systems, their overlay accuracy with superimposition (SI) modality onto the surgical field remains limited. The virtual twin (VT), displaying holography adjacent to the surgical field, may offer a viable alternative. However, its performance is still unclear.
Objective:
This study aimed to compare the accuracy and efficiency of the two visualization modalities, SI and VT, for anatomical localization in the head and neck region.
Methods:
In a randomized crossover trial to compare two augmented reality visualization modalities (SI and VT), 38 participants used a HoloLens 2 to localize point, line-based, and volume-based anatomical structures on head phantoms. Their performance was evaluated with respect to accuracy, workload, time, and user experience.
Results:
SI achieved significantly better point localization accuracy than VT both in absolute (mean 14.4, SD 4.2 mm vs mean 15.8, SD 5.5 mm; P=.003) and relative accuracy (mean 3.4, SD 2.2 mm vs mean 6.0, SD 5.0 mm; P<.001). In line-based structures, accuracy was comparable between SI (average surface distance [ASD], mean 23.4, SD 4.1 mm; Hausdorff distance [HD], mean 31.5, SD 7.8 mm) and VT (ASD=mean 23.0, SD 4.5 mm; P=.51; HD=mean 31.0, SD 7.5 mm; P=.57). However, SI showed significantly higher deviation than VT in volume-based structure (ASD=mean 37.1, SD 13.8 mm vs mean 34.1, SD 14.2 mm; P=.01; HD=mean 52.0, SD 16.8 mm vs mean 49.1, SD 15.8 mm; P=.03). Participants were faster with SI (P=.02), while workload NASA-TLX (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index) scores did not demonstrate a significant difference (P=.79).
Conclusions:
Given that SI did not clearly outperform VT under overlaid soft tissue and viewing challenges, VT remains a viable alternative in certain surgical scenarios where high accuracy is not required. Future research should focus on optimizing viewing angle guidance and the linkage between the anatomical target and the skin surface.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Random Sampling Method
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...

