Skip to content

Accuracy and efficiency of drilling trajectories using optical-see-through augmented reality compared to conventional navigation: Crossover RCT

Accuracy and efficiency of drilling trajectories using optical-see-through augmented reality compared to conventional navigation: Crossover RCT - AR Drill Trajectory

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
DRKS
Registry ID
DRKS00031357
Enrollment
36
Registered
2024-01-11
Start date
2024-01-11
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-04-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Surgeries with trajectory drilling procedure

Interventions

Group 1: AR-based OST-HMD navigation method Group 2: Conventional 2D navigation method

Sponsors

RWTH Aachen University, Chair of Medical Engineering (mediTEC)
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to No maximum

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Surgical residents or specialists 2. Medical or dental students in the clinical part of their studies. 3. Engineers

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. The participant does not pass the Lang stereo test 2. Color blindness 3. Left-handed 4. Decline to participate

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The maximum projected translational deviation between the executed and planned trajectories between AR-based and conventional navigation methods.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
1. The angular deviation of the conducted and planned trajectories compared between AR-based and conventional navigation method. 2. The depth deviation of the conducted and planned trajectories compared between AR-based and conventional navigation method. 3. Comparison of the total time between AR-based and conventional navigation methods. a. Sub-analysis 1: Time to reach the entry point (criteria: reaching 3 mm lower than the top surface of the block). b. Sub-analysis 2: Time to perform the drilling. 4. NASA-TLX workload comparison between AR-based and conventional navigation methods. 5. SUS usability comparison between AR-based and conventional navigation methods. 6. Qualitative comparison of AR-based and conventional navigation methods using Likert questionnaires.

Countries

Germany

Contacts

Public ContactMatías de la Fuente Klein

RWTH Aachen University, Chair of Medical Engineering (mediTEC)

fuente@hia.rwth-aachen.de+49 2418023871

Outcome results

None listed

Source: DRKS (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026