Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To compare the added benefit of optical see-through, the Magic Leap 2 (ML2), and video see-through, the Apple Vision Pro (AVP), head-mounted displays extended reality (XR) during percutaneous biopsies on an abdominal phantom.</p> Material and Methods <p>In this phantom-based prospective cohort study, sixteen radiologists (5 experienced and 11 beginners) performed six needle insertions: two without XR, two with ML2, and two with AVP. Two lesions of differing difficulty (depth and proximity to vessels) were targeted. Post-procedure CT measured accuracy (hitting the target and distance and angle to lesion center). Cognitive workload and user experience were assessed using a structured questionnaire with a rating of 0–20.</p> Results <p>Beginners benefited more from XR than experienced radiologists. Beginners improved their targeting accuracy with XR, especially for the more complex lesion closer to blood vessels, where success rates increased using XR (conventional: 1/11, ML2: 2/11, AVP: 4/11), with a decrease in mean distance to target (conventional: 17.95 ± 9.14&#xa0;mm; ML2: 14.21 ± 6.27&#xa0;mm; AVP: 12.02 ± 7.19&#xa0;mm). Advanced radiologists had overall lower success rates (conventional: 1/5, ML2: 0/5, AVP: 1/5). XR also reduced puncture time for beginner (ML2: 68.1%, AVP: 56.9% of baseline) and advanced radiologists (ML2: 79.0%, AVP: 61.7%). Questionnaire results indicated AVP was perceived as more mentally demanding, particularly by experienced radiologists (mental demand: conventional: 11, ML2: 9, AVP: 12, for beginners, and conventional: 12, ML2: 11, AVP: 17, for advanced). Beginners adapted well to both systems, showing no significant difference in perceived workload compared to conventional puncture and similar performance levels (conventional: 9, ML2: 9, AVP: 12, for beginners, and conventional: 15, ML2: 11, AVP: 7, for advanced).</p> Conclusion <p>Our work demonstrates that AVP performs similar to ML2 in needle placement tasks and can be used in further research and clinical application in interventional radiology.</p> Level of Evidence <p>No level of evidence.</p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Optical See-Through and Video See-Through Head-Mounted Displays for Percutaneous Biopsies: A Comparative Phantom Study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月7日

查看全文
  • Alice M. Jacob,
  • Alexander M. C. Böhner,
  • Andreas Henkel,
  • Taraneh Aziz-Safaie,
  • Lukas Oelmeier,
  • Nick Lenzen,
  • Anna-Maria Odenthal,
  • Mohammed Bahaaeldin,
  • Aileen Schmidt,
  • Darius Kurt,
  • Joseph Sieber,
  • Leon M. Bischoff,
  • Yannik C. Layer,
  • Dmitrij Kravchenko,
  • Marilia Voigt,
  • Patrick Kupczyk,
  • Tatjana Dell,
  • Narine Mesropyan,
  • Alexander Isaak,
  • Claus C. Pieper,
  • Julian A. Luetkens,
  • Daniel Kuetting

摘要

Purpose

To compare the added benefit of optical see-through, the Magic Leap 2 (ML2), and video see-through, the Apple Vision Pro (AVP), head-mounted displays extended reality (XR) during percutaneous biopsies on an abdominal phantom.

Material and Methods

In this phantom-based prospective cohort study, sixteen radiologists (5 experienced and 11 beginners) performed six needle insertions: two without XR, two with ML2, and two with AVP. Two lesions of differing difficulty (depth and proximity to vessels) were targeted. Post-procedure CT measured accuracy (hitting the target and distance and angle to lesion center). Cognitive workload and user experience were assessed using a structured questionnaire with a rating of 0–20.

Results

Beginners benefited more from XR than experienced radiologists. Beginners improved their targeting accuracy with XR, especially for the more complex lesion closer to blood vessels, where success rates increased using XR (conventional: 1/11, ML2: 2/11, AVP: 4/11), with a decrease in mean distance to target (conventional: 17.95 ± 9.14 mm; ML2: 14.21 ± 6.27 mm; AVP: 12.02 ± 7.19 mm). Advanced radiologists had overall lower success rates (conventional: 1/5, ML2: 0/5, AVP: 1/5). XR also reduced puncture time for beginner (ML2: 68.1%, AVP: 56.9% of baseline) and advanced radiologists (ML2: 79.0%, AVP: 61.7%). Questionnaire results indicated AVP was perceived as more mentally demanding, particularly by experienced radiologists (mental demand: conventional: 11, ML2: 9, AVP: 12, for beginners, and conventional: 12, ML2: 11, AVP: 17, for advanced). Beginners adapted well to both systems, showing no significant difference in perceived workload compared to conventional puncture and similar performance levels (conventional: 9, ML2: 9, AVP: 12, for beginners, and conventional: 15, ML2: 11, AVP: 7, for advanced).

Conclusion

Our work demonstrates that AVP performs similar to ML2 in needle placement tasks and can be used in further research and clinical application in interventional radiology.

Level of Evidence

No level of evidence.

Graphical Abstract