We only have this paper's title and publication details.
Read it at the sourceAnswers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“The procedural safety data from this trial show a significant reduction in access-site bleeding in the VR group when compared with the control group. The authors postulate that improved understanding of iliofemoral anatomy and puncture site planning facilitated by VR could explain this reduction. While that is plausible, the high rates of access-site bleeding observed in this study deserve careful consideration.”
“VR performed marginally worse than CT in sizing of the TAVI prosthesis. As the authors explain, the familiarity of experienced operators with multislice CT analysis in combination with the lack of dedicated measurement algorithms in the VR software could be responsible for this. It should be feasible to incorporate digital tools into the VR workflow, which would increase its accuracy.”
“The marginal gains from using VR in addition to CT may be more useful in challenging anatomies. For example, VR may facilitate visualization of the neo-skirt plane and the spatial relationship between valve frames and coronary ostia during complex valve-in-valve procedures. There will be a role for VR in teaching and training, especially for complex anatomic concepts.”
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chatterjee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: