Skip to content

Hero image: Women surgeons and a patient examining a three-dimensional pelvic model before a procedure

All insights

Surgical innovation

Spatial and Extended Reality in Gynecologic Surgery: Training Today, Navigation Tomorrow

11 min readEvidence synthesis
Read the evidence

The question in focus

What evidence supports about simulation in gynecologic surgery and what remains investigational for augmented-reality planning and navigation.

Evidence at a glance

20

studies were included in a 2022 review of simulation before gynecologic surgery

The review included 13 randomized trials and found improved technical skills, but insufficient evidence on patient-related outcomes. [1]

Gynecologic surgical skill acquisition through simulation

Spatial technology covers several distinct uses

Virtual reality can provide an immersive simulated operating environment. Augmented or mixed reality can place digital information within a user's view. Three-dimensional models can support education, planning or communication without being displayed during surgery. These uses have different risks and evidence requirements. Training a resident in a simulator is not equivalent to guiding an instrument beside moving tissue.

The near-term evidence is strongest for simulation-based training. A 2022 systematic review of gynecologic surgery identified 20 studies, including 13 randomized trials, and found that simulators improved operating-room technical skill measures compared with traditional teaching. The authors found insufficient evidence for patient-related outcomes. [1]

  • Separate education, preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation.
  • Specify whether a display is informational or guides an action.
  • Evaluate each hardware and software configuration as a system.

Simulation can improve technical performance

A randomized study of 20 residents performing their first laparoscopic hysterectomy found higher objective technical-skill scores after ten simulator training sessions. Mean global rating scores were 17.0 with training and 11.2 in controls. Operative time differed by 21 minutes but that difference was not statistically significant, and blood loss and direct complications did not differ. [2]

Earlier randomized and systematic evidence in laparoscopy also supports proficiency-based simulation for technical skill acquisition. [3] The result should be interpreted as support for a curriculum, not permission to replace supervised surgical training. Simulation needs validated tasks, objective proficiency thresholds, faculty feedback, deliberate practice and assessment of transfer to the operating room.

  • Train to a proficiency standard, not a fixed number of repetitions alone.
  • Include team communication, equipment failure and emergency scenarios.
  • Retain supervised operating-room progression and credentialing.

Planning may improve understanding before it improves outcomes

Patient-specific three-dimensional reconstructions can make complex anatomy easier to discuss, particularly for large fibroids, congenital anomalies, deep endometriosis or oncologic surgery. Potential benefits include shared mental models, clearer consent and rehearsal of surgical approaches. Evidence should measure whether planning changes decisions accurately and whether those changes improve outcomes. [4][6]

Visualization can also mislead. Segmentation depends on image quality, operator choices and software. A model may omit small lesions, distort tissue planes or appear more certain than the underlying scan. Teams should display provenance and uncertainty, verify critical anatomy against source imaging and avoid promising that a model predicts every intraoperative finding. [6]

  • Record who created and clinically reviewed the model.
  • Validate segmentation for the structure and disease of interest.
  • Use the model as an adjunct to, not a replacement for, source imaging and judgment.

Soft-tissue navigation remains difficult

Augmented-reality navigation must register a digital model to the patient and keep it aligned as organs move, deform and respond to surgical manipulation. A recent systematic review of minimally invasive abdominal and thoracic surgery found only 28 eligible studies from 1,297 records and concluded that evidence was mostly small-scale or preliminary; gynecologic evidence was particularly scarce. [4]

FDA-cleared augmented-reality navigation systems exist for selected indications such as spinal procedures, showing that the platform concept can reach regulated use. [5] That status cannot be transferred to gynecologic surgery. Uterine and pelvic soft-tissue deformation, visualization, tracking accuracy and workflow must be validated for the exact indication, and surgeons need a clear fallback when registration is lost.

  • Report target registration error and how it changes during the procedure.
  • Define visual warnings and automatic suspension when tracking is unreliable.
  • Test occlusion, latency, motion and headset ergonomics.
  • Never extrapolate clearance from another anatomy or procedure.

Clinical adoption should follow staged evidence

Training systems can be evaluated through skill acquisition, retention and transfer, followed by patient outcomes. Planning tools need evidence that they improve decision quality, consent or efficiency without creating new error. Navigation tools require bench testing, human-factors evaluation, early clinical feasibility and comparative trials appropriate to risk. The IMDRF framework requires valid clinical association, analytical validation and clinical validation for software that serves a medical purpose. [6]

Procurement should ask whether the technology addresses a real limitation, whether evidence is independent, and how updates are controlled. A visually impressive demonstration is not a clinical endpoint. The safest programme labels simulation as supported for skill development, planning as promising for selected complex cases, and intraoperative gynecologic navigation as investigational unless indication-specific evidence and authorization exist.

  • What action changes because of the spatial display?
  • Was accuracy tested in the intended anatomy and workflow?
  • Are surgeons trained to recognize and recover from misregistration?
  • Do studies report complications and patient outcomes, not only task time?

What the evidence cannot yet answer

  • Most simulation studies measure technical performance rather than patient outcomes.
  • Small, single-centre studies may not generalize across procedures, equipment or training systems.
  • Evidence and authorization from orthopedic or neurosurgical navigation do not establish gynecologic use.
  • Rapid hardware and software changes can make published results version-specific.

Questions worth taking into care

  1. Is the intended use training, planning or intraoperative guidance?
  2. What validated outcome supports that exact use?
  3. How is model accuracy checked and uncertainty shown?
  4. What happens if tracking, rendering or hardware fails?
  5. Has the system been authorized and studied for this anatomy and procedure?

Source record

Evidence used in this review

Sources were selected for clinical authority, methodological relevance and traceability. Links open the original guidance, public-health record or research publication.

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
    Augmented Reality for Navigation in Minimally Invasive Soft-Tissue Surgery

    Systematic review indexed in PubMed Central · 2026

  5. [5]
    HOLO Portal Surgical Guidance System 510(k) summary

    US Food and Drug Administration · 2023

  6. [6]
    Software as a Medical Device

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2025

Editorial standard

This evidence synthesis is for general information. It does not diagnose a condition or replace care from a qualified health professional. Treatment choices depend on individual history, examination, local guidance and informed preference. Emergency or rapidly worsening symptoms need urgent local medical assessment.