Esta página se tradujo automáticamente y no se garantiza la precisión de la traducción. por favor refiérase a versión inglesa para un texto fuente.

Use of Apple Vision Pro as Virtual Monitor for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures

27 de agosto de 2026 actualizado por: The Methodist Hospital Research Institute

Use of Apple Vision Pro as a Head-mounted Virtual Monitor for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures

This study evaluates whether the Apple Vision Pro (AVP), a head-mounted display device, can be used as a virtual monitor for performing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Participating surgeons wear the Apple Vision Pro instead of viewing a traditional operating room monitor while performing their normal cases.

The main goals of the study are to assess: (1) visualization quality (how is the visualization quality when compared to using a traditional monitor), (2) ergonomic characteristics (ergonomics such as neck pain, back pain, shoulder discomfort and when compared to using a traditional monitor), (3) task-load index (NASA-TLX workload while using the device), and (4) feasibility (whether cases can be completed successfully using the device).

The study team hypothesizes that using the Apple Vision Pro will provide superior visual resolution and improved ergonomics compared with viewing on a standard 32-inch 4K boom-mounted operating room monitor. After each case, surgeons rate their experience across these outcomes based on their previous experience of using a traditional monitor.

Descripción general del estudio

Descripción detallada

Study Procedures

Enrolled physicians use the Apple Vision Pro (AVP) in place of a traditional monitor for the duration of each participating case. The AVP is worn from intra-operative visualization setup (typically at incision or first use of the imaging system) until the conclusion of the primary intra-operative visualization phase.

No modifications are made to the physician's standard operative technique, instrumentation, or intra-operative workflow apart from substitution of the display device. If the physician determines at any point during a case that the AVP cannot support safe completion of the procedure, they may revert to the traditional monitor without penalty; such cases are documented with a structured reason for conversion.

Data Collection Instruments

Data are collected via a structured post-case survey administered in REDCap immediately following case completion. The survey captures:

Case characteristics: date, operating physician, specialty, procedure name, operative time, and patient information (height, weight, body mass index).

Overall visualization rating: a single-item 5-point Likert-type comparative scale (1 = much worse than a traditional monitor; 5 = much better).

NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX): the raw unweighted version, comprising six subscales (mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort, frustration). The overall NASA-TLX score is computed as the mean of the six subscale ratings.

Per-case ergonomic symptom checklist: twelve pre-specified symptom dimensions (eye strain, headache, dizziness, nausea, blurred or double vision, light sensitivity, puffiness of the eyelids, face discomfort, neck discomfort, shoulder discomfort, back discomfort, and other AVP-related discomfort). Each symptom is captured using a two-step response format: first, a yes/no screen for whether the symptom was experienced; then, if experienced, a comparative severity rating (1 = much worse than a traditional monitor to 5 = much better). Cases in which a symptom is not experienced are coded as 0.

Feasibility of using AVP: binary yes/no field with a structured failure reason if the case could not be completed on the AVP (device failure, inadequate visual quality, negative ergonomic factors, or other).

Data Management

All study data are stored in REDCap hosted on Houston Methodist's institutional server infrastructure, which is HIPAA-compliant and access-controlled. Patient identifiers (medical record numbers) are used at the point of data entry to link procedure-specific metadata (e.g., patient BMI, operative timing from the electronic health record). Prior to analysis, all patient identifiers are removed and cases are analyzed using de-identified case-level records only.

Access to the REDCap project is restricted to study personnel with active IRB approval and REDCap credentials, managed through the Houston Methodist REDCap administrative team. Role-based user rights limit editing and export privileges according to each user's study responsibilities.

Quality Assurance

Structured, coded response fields (radio buttons, validated numeric inputs, checkbox groupings) are used throughout the data collection instrument to minimize free-text entry and reduce data entry error. Branching logic is used to ensure that follow-up items are displayed only when relevant, reducing survey burden and preventing invalid response combinations.

Range and consistency checks are built into the REDCap instrument, including validated time and integer entry, and permitted value ranges for continuous variables. Periodic data quality review is conducted by the study coordinator, including checks for completeness, out-of-range values, internal consistency between related fields, and follow-up on missing or incomplete records. Data queries are resolved with the responsible surgeon or clinical staff.

Tipo de estudio

De observación

Inscripción (Estimado)

4

Contactos y Ubicaciones

Esta sección proporciona los datos de contacto de quienes realizan el estudio e información sobre dónde se lleva a cabo este estudio.

Ubicaciones de estudio

    • Texas
      • Houston, Texas, Estados Unidos, 77054
        • Department of Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Texas Medical Center

Criterios de participación

Los investigadores buscan personas que se ajusten a una determinada descripción, denominada criterio de elegibilidad. Algunos ejemplos de estos criterios son el estado de salud general de una persona o tratamientos previos.

Criterio de elegibilidad

Edades elegibles para estudiar

  • Adulto
  • Adulto Mayor

Acepta Voluntarios Saludables

Sí

Método de muestreo

Muestra no probabilística

Población de estudio

  1. Clinical care team members in the operating room who are participating in any monitor-bases diagnostic/therapeutic procedures.
  2. Patients who are adults who are 18 years of age or older and:

Who are capable of giving informed consent. Who are undergoing any monitor-based diagnostic/therapeutic procedure performed at Houston Methodist Hospital.

Descripción

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Vision correction with contacts and Lasik are acceptable.
  • Surgeons who wear glasses and who have corrective lens inserts in the Apple Vision Pro.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Vision correction with glasses and no custom lens inserts for the Apple Vision Pro.
  • Significant vision impairment that is not corrected.
  • Pregnant women: A known risk when wearing the AVP is nausea and dizziness; we do not want to exacerbate this.
  • Adults with known seizure disorders.

Plan de estudios

Esta sección proporciona detalles del plan de estudio, incluido cómo está diseñado el estudio y qué mide el estudio.

¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?

Detalles de diseño

¿Qué mide el estudio?

Medidas de resultado primarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Overall Visualization quality compared to traditional monitor
Periodo de tiempo: Immediately post-procedure, assessed once per case, through study completion up to 12 months

Participants would rate their experience of using AVP as virtual monitor compared to traditional monitor, rated on a 5-point Likert scale

  1. = Much worse than a monitor
  2. = Slightly worse than a monitor
  3. = The same as a monitor
  4. = Slightly better than a monitor
  5. = Much better than a monitor
Immediately post-procedure, assessed once per case, through study completion up to 12 months
Overall ergonomic characteristics compared to traditional monitor
Periodo de tiempo: Immediately post-procedure, assessed once per case, through study completion up to 12 months

After each case, the participating physician completes a two-part symptom assessment:

Part 1 - Symptom Screening: Participant is presented with a checklist of 12 symptoms potentially associated with wearing a head-mounted display. Participant selects all symptoms experienced during the case. If no symptoms were experienced, participant selects "I did not experience any of these symptoms."

Part 2 - Comparative Severity Rating: For each symptom marked as experienced in Part 1, participant rates how it compared to symptoms typically experienced when using a traditional surgical monitor:

  1. = Much worse than a monitor
  2. = Slightly worse than a monitor
  3. = The same as a monitor
  4. = Slightly better than a monitor
  5. = Much better than a monitor

Symptoms assessed:

Eye strain (tired eyes, burning, stinging, or itchiness) Headache Dizziness Nausea Blurred or double vision Light sensitivity Puffiness of the eyelids Face pain Neck pain or discomfort Shoulder pain Back pain Other discomfort

Immediately post-procedure, assessed once per case, through study completion up to 12 months
NASA-TLX survey
Periodo de tiempo: Immediately post-procedure, assessed once per case, through study completion up to 12 months

Participants will complete a NASA-Task load index survey which assesses the workload during each procedure, rated across 6 dimensions on a scale of 0-100

  • Mental demand
  • Physical demand
  • Temporal demand
  • Performance
  • Effort
  • Frustration

The six ratings are averaged into a single overall workload score with higher scores indicating greater perceived workload.

Immediately post-procedure, assessed once per case, through study completion up to 12 months
Feasibility of using AVP
Periodo de tiempo: Immediately post-procedure, assessed once per case, through study completion up to 12 months

Data will be collected on conversion events (transition from AVP as the primary monitor to a standard monitor). Each conversion will be categorized into one of the three pre-specified reasons:

  • Device failure (e.g., technical malfunction, connectivity loss, battery or power issue)
  • Negative ergonomics factors (e.g., discomfort, fit issue, visual or physical fatigue precluding continued use)
  • Inadequate imaging for procedural completion (e.g., insufficient resolution, depth perception, or field of view for task at hand)
  • Any other events that lead to conversion
Immediately post-procedure, assessed once per case, through study completion up to 12 months

Colaboradores e Investigadores

Aquí es donde encontrará personas y organizaciones involucradas en este estudio.

Publicaciones y enlaces útiles

La persona responsable de ingresar información sobre el estudio proporciona voluntariamente estas publicaciones. Estos pueden ser sobre cualquier cosa relacionada con el estudio.

Fechas de registro del estudio

Estas fechas rastrean el progreso del registro del estudio y los envíos de resultados resumidos a ClinicalTrials.gov. Los registros del estudio y los resultados informados son revisados ​​por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (NLM) para asegurarse de que cumplan con los estándares de control de calidad específicos antes de publicarlos en el sitio web público.

Fechas importantes del estudio

Inicio del estudio (Actual)

16 de junio de 2025

Finalización primaria (Estimado)

1 de mayo de 2027

Finalización del estudio (Estimado)

1 de mayo de 2027

Fechas de registro del estudio

Enviado por primera vez

24 de agosto de 2026

Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

27 de agosto de 2026

Publicado por primera vez (Actual)

1 de septiembre de 2026

Actualizaciones de registros de estudio

Última actualización publicada (Actual)

1 de septiembre de 2026

Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

27 de agosto de 2026

Última verificación

1 de agosto de 2026

Más información

Términos relacionados con este estudio

Otros números de identificación del estudio

  • PRO00039837

Plan de datos de participantes individuales (IPD)

¿Planea compartir datos de participantes individuales (IPD)?

NO

Descripción del plan IPD

We will not share IPD at the moment.

Información sobre medicamentos y dispositivos, documentos del estudio

Estudia un producto farmacéutico regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Estudia un producto de dispositivo regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Esta información se obtuvo directamente del sitio web clinicaltrials.gov sin cambios. Si tiene alguna solicitud para cambiar, eliminar o actualizar los detalles de su estudio, comuníquese con register@clinicaltrials.gov. Tan pronto como se implemente un cambio en clinicaltrials.gov, también se actualizará automáticamente en nuestro sitio web. .

Suscribir