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

NCT07797556 | Enrolling By Invitation

• 1 other identifier: PRO00039837
• Study Type: observational
• Target: 4
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

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.

Conditions

Device Convenience; Device Performance; Surgeons' Rating; Ergonomics

Keywords

apple vision pro; virtual monitor; diagnostic procedures; therapeutic procedures

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (4)

• Overall Visualization quality compared to traditional monitor

  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

  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

  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

  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

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)
• Sampling Method: Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

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.

You may qualify if:

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

You may not qualify if:

• 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.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• The Methodist Hospital Research Institute: lead

Study Sites (1)

Department of Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Texas Medical Center

Houston, Texas, 77054, United States

Location

Related Publications (1)

• Wang T, Zheng B. 3D presentation in surgery: a review of technology and adverse effects. J Robot Surg. 2019 Jun;13(3):363-370. doi: 10.1007/s11701-018-00900-3. Epub 2018 Dec 15.

  PMID: 30847653 RESULT

Related Links

• The creative endeavors of Jared E. Bendis - Visual acuity, DPI and resolution
• Optimum HDTV viewing distance

Study Design

• Study Type: observational
• Observational Model: OTHER
• Time Perspective: PROSPECTIVE
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: August 24, 2026
• First Posted: September 1, 2026
• Study Start: June 16, 2025
• Primary Completion (Estimated): May 1, 2027
• Study Completion (Estimated): May 1, 2027
• Last Updated: September 1, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-08

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

US (1)