Kevin Wong1, Halina M Yee2, Brian A Xavier3, Gregory A Grillone2. 1. 1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 2. 2 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Augmented reality (AR) is a rapidly developing technology. The aim of this systematic review was to (1) identify and evaluate applications of AR in otolaryngology and (2) examine trends in publication over time. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EMBASE. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines without temporal limits. Studies were included if they reported otolaryngology-related applications of AR. Exclusion criteria included non-English articles, abstracts, letters/commentaries, and reviews. A linear regression model was used to compare publication trends over time. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles representing 18 AR platforms were included. Publications increased between 1997 and 2018 ( P < .05). Twelve studies were level 5 evidence; 9 studies, level 4; 1 study, level 2; and 1 study, level 1. There was no trend toward increased level of evidence over time. The most common subspecialties represented were rhinology (52.2%), head and neck (30.4%), and neurotology (26%). The most common purpose of AR was intraoperative guidance (54.5%), followed by surgical planning (24.2%) and procedural simulations (9.1%). The most common source of visual inputs was endoscopes (50%), followed by eyewear (22.2%) and microscopes (4.5%). Computed tomography was the most common virtual input (83.3%). Optical trackers and fiducial markers were the most common forms of tracking and registration, respectively (38.9% and 44.4%). Mean registration error was 2.48 mm. CONCLUSION: AR holds promise in simulation, surgical planning, and perioperative navigation. Although level of evidence remains modest, the role of AR in otolaryngology has grown rapidly and continues to expand.
OBJECTIVE: Augmented reality (AR) is a rapidly developing technology. The aim of this systematic review was to (1) identify and evaluate applications of AR in otolaryngology and (2) examine trends in publication over time. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EMBASE. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines without temporal limits. Studies were included if they reported otolaryngology-related applications of AR. Exclusion criteria included non-English articles, abstracts, letters/commentaries, and reviews. A linear regression model was used to compare publication trends over time. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles representing 18 AR platforms were included. Publications increased between 1997 and 2018 ( P < .05). Twelve studies were level 5 evidence; 9 studies, level 4; 1 study, level 2; and 1 study, level 1. There was no trend toward increased level of evidence over time. The most common subspecialties represented were rhinology (52.2%), head and neck (30.4%), and neurotology (26%). The most common purpose of AR was intraoperative guidance (54.5%), followed by surgical planning (24.2%) and procedural simulations (9.1%). The most common source of visual inputs was endoscopes (50%), followed by eyewear (22.2%) and microscopes (4.5%). Computed tomography was the most common virtual input (83.3%). Optical trackers and fiducial markers were the most common forms of tracking and registration, respectively (38.9% and 44.4%). Mean registration error was 2.48 mm. CONCLUSION:AR holds promise in simulation, surgical planning, and perioperative navigation. Although level of evidence remains modest, the role of AR in otolaryngology has grown rapidly and continues to expand.
Authors: K Kalaiarasan; Lavanya Prathap; M Ayyadurai; P Subhashini; T Tamilselvi; T Avudaiappan; I Infant Raj; Samson Alemayehu Mamo; Amine Mezni Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Nyall R London; Gustavo G Rangel; Kyle VanKoevering; Ashley Zhang; Allison R Powell; Daniel M Prevedello; Ricardo L Carrau; Patrick C Walz Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Rosanna Ruggiero; Giovanni Motta; Giuseppe Massaro; Concetta Rafaniello; Alberto Della Corte; Antonella De Angelis; Annalisa Capuano; Gaetano Motta; Francesco Rossi Journal: Front Allergy Date: 2021-12-15
Authors: Francesco Cerritelli; Marco Chiera; Marco Abbro; Valentino Megale; Jorge Esteves; Alberto Gallace; Andrea Manzotti Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Tomi Timonen; Matti Iso-Mustajärvi; Pia Linder; Antti Lehtimäki; Heikki Löppönen; Antti-Pekka Elomaa; Aarno Dietz Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 2.503