The findings indicate that both AR-guided imaging pipelines are viable for spinal intervention support. CBCT-based AR offers advantages in efficiency, precision, usability, and user confidence during insertion, whereas ultrasound-based AR provides adaptive, radiation-free imaging but is limited by shape completion in deeper spinal regions. These complementary characteristics motivate hybrid AR guidance that uses CBCT for global anatomical context and planning, augmented by ultrasound for adaptive intraoperative updates.
Song et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: