2D versus 3D: A Comparison of Needle Navigation Concepts between Augmented Reality Display Devices
Florian Heinrich, Lovis Schwenderling, Fabian Joeres, Christian Hansen
Abstract
Surgical procedures requiring needle navigation assistance suffer from complicated hand-eye coordination and are mentally demanding. Augmented reality (AR) can help overcome these issues. How-ever, only an insufficient amount of fundamental research has focused on the design and hardware selection of such AR needle navigation systems. This work contributes to this research area by presenting a user study (n=24) comparing three state-of-the-art navigation concepts displayed by an optical see-through head-mounted display and a stereoscopic projection system. A two-dimensional glyph visualization resulted in higher targeting accuracy but required more needle insertion time. In contrast, punctures guided by a three-dimensional see-through vision concept were less accurate but faster and were favored in a qualitative interview. The third concept, a static representation of the correctly positioned needle, showed too high target errors for clinical accuracy needs. This concept per-formed worse when displayed by the projection system. Besides that, no meaningful differences between the evaluated AR display devices were detected. User preferences and use case restrictions, e.g., sterility requirements, seem to be more crucial selection criteria. Future work should focus on improving the accuracy of the see-through vision concept. Until then, the glyph visualization is recommended.
Ask about this paper
Ask your agent about it.
Lune has read the top-tier papers around this one, so every answer names the papers it rests on.
Your agent calls
Lunesearch_papers
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers get 45bc6fac-7393-4e17-ba54-926cae1813a6Cited by top-tier papers2
- Evaluation of AR visualization approaches for catheter insertion into the ventricle cavityMohamed Benmahdjoub, Abdullah Thabit, Marie-Lise C. van Veelen, Wiro J. Niessen et al.IEEE VR 2023 · 25 citations
- MRUCT: Mixed Reality Assistance for Acupuncture Guided by Ultrasonic Computed TomographyXinkai Wang, Yue Yang, Kehong Zhou, Xue Xie et al.IEEE VR 2025 · 3 citations
Related papers
- Multimodal Feedback for Handheld Tool Guidance: Combining Wrist-Based Haptics with Augmented RealityYue Yang, Christoph Leuze, Brian A. Hargreaves, Bruce Daniel et al.IEEE VR 2026
- The Impact of Navigation Aids on Search Performance and Object Recall in Wide-Area Augmented RealityRadha Kumaran, You-Jin Kim, Anne E. Milner, Tom Bullock et al.CHI 2023 · 39 citations
- Extend Your Horizon: A Device-Agnostic Surgical Tool Tracking Framework with Multi-View Optimization for Augmented RealityJiaming Zhang, Mingxu Liu, Hongchao Shu, Ruixing Liang et al.IEEE VR 2026 · 1 citation
- Do we still need physical monitors? An evaluation of the usability of AR virtual monitors for productivity workLeonardo Pavanatto, Chris North, Doug A. Bowman, Carmen Badea et al.IEEE VR 2021 · 90 citations
- Eye-Hand Coordination Training: A Systematic Comparison of 2D, VR, and AR Display Technologies and Task InstructionsAliza Aliza, Irene Zaugg, Elif Celik, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger et al.IEEE VR 2024 · 8 citations
