PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Augmented Reality”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Reality Technologies in Neurosurgical Training: Enhancing Skills and Surgical Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the role of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) in neurosurgical education and training. DESIGN: Systematic review conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. SETTING: A comprehensive search was performed across PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for English-language studies published between 1 January 2020 and 30 April 2026. PARTICIPANTS: Studies involving neurosurgeons, fellows, residents, and medical students (maximum sample size: n = 48) were included. RESULTS: Of 7,204 initially identified studies, 25 met the inclusion criteria. VR was primarily used for surgical simulation (100% of VR studies) and anatomical education (62.5%). AR demonstrated broader applications, including preoperative planning (40%) and intraoperative support (30%). MR was evenly distributed across simulation, planning, and intraoperative support (40% each). The most frequently improved outcomes were training effectiveness (52%) and technical proficiency (44%). Methodological quality scores, assessed using the Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MMERSQI), ranged from 39.5 to 84.5, indicating varied rigor. CONCLUSION: VR, AR, and MR technologies show potential to enhance surgical precision, technical skills, and educational outcomes in neurosurgical training. However, standardization of methodologies and cost-effective solutions remain essential. Future research should focus on long-term clinical impact and integration of AI-driven training models.

Virtual Reality↗
PubMed2026

Extended Reality Interventions for Osteoarthritis of the Knee and Recovery After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Nonpharmacologic interventions are important for treating knee pain due to osteoarthritis or after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and extended reality (XR) technology may enhance treatments for these indications. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to evaluate XR interventions for pain due to knee osteoarthritis (KOA) or for recovery after TKA. METHODS: Databases were searched through May 2023 and updated in December 2025. Eligible trials evaluated XR interventions to treat KOA pain or after TKA. We classified interventions by depth of immersion and clinical mechanism. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to determine the certainty of evidence for prioritized outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed when ≥3 studies evaluated similar comparisons, outcomes, and time points. RESULTS: Eligible trials addressed KOA (k=12) or recovery after TKA (k=9). Sample sizes ranged from 36 to 306 participants, and most studies had a follow-up of ≤3 months. Nineteen studies assessed pain-related functioning and pain intensity, and 5 assessed adverse events (AEs). For KOA, 10 studies examined interactive digital rehabilitation (IDR), and 2 examined virtual reality (VR)-digitally augmented exercise (DAE). IDR for KOA may result in better pain-related functioning (low certainty of evidence [COE]; pooled standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.06; prediction interval [PI] -1.72 to 0.55; k=5) and lower pain intensity at 6-8 weeks (low COE; pooled SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.00; PI -1.39 to 0.47; k=4). VR-DAE for KOA (k=2) produced inconsistent results (very low COE). For post-TKA studies, 5 examined IDR, 2 examined VR-DAE, 1 examined VR-distraction, and 1 examined VR-psychoeducation. Post-TKA IDR may result in better pain-related functioning (low [k=4] and moderate COE [k=1]) but little to no difference in pain intensity (low-moderate COE; pooled SMD at 3-4 months -0.12, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.52; PI -1.63 to 1.27; k=3). VR-psychoeducation probably results in lower pain at 4 weeks (moderate COE; k=1), and VR-distraction may result in 6 months (low COE; k=1), whereas VR-DAE produced mixed findings (k=2; very low COE). IDR was not associated with AEs, and VR may not be associated with AEs for KOA (high and low COE), though AE reporting was uncommon (k=5) and evidence was very uncertain for post-TKA. CONCLUSIONS: IDR may augment treatment for KOA and post-TKA recovery, and VR may benefit post-TKA rehabilitation. This review is the first to stratify by level of immersion, clinical mechanism, and follow-up duration and to systematically evaluate AEs. IDR may be ready for integration into KOA care, while use after TKA needs more evidence. Randomized controlled trials with implementation outcomes could determine how XR interventions can be used for KOA, whereas trials evaluating efficacy and AEs are needed before their use for post-TKA.

Humans↗