Device ConvenienceNCT07797556
Use of Apple Vision Pro as Virtual Monitor for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures
An observational study of Device Convenience and Device Performance, run by The Methodist Hospital Research Institute at 1 site in United States.
Trial 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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Device Convenience, Device Performance, Surgeons' Rating
- How many people
- 4 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 16 Jun 2025to May 2027
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
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.
Who may be able to join
- Vision correction with contacts and Lasik are acceptable.
- Surgeons who wear glasses and who have corrective lens inserts in the Apple Vision Pro.
Who cannot join
- 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.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
United States1 site
Department of Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Texas Medical Center
Houston, Texas, 77054
About this study
Official title: 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.
Read the detailed description
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.
- Conditions
- Device Convenience, Device Performance, Surgeons' Rating, Ergonomics
- Keywords
- apple vision pro, virtual monitor, diagnostic procedures, therapeutic procedures
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
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
- = Much worse than a monitor
- = Slightly worse than a monitor
- = The same as a monitor
- = Slightly better than a monitor
- = Much better than a monitor
Measured: 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:
- = Much worse than a monitor
- = Slightly worse than a monitor
- = The same as a monitor
- = Slightly better than a monitor
- = 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
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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
Measured: Immediately post-procedure, assessed once per case, through study completion up to 12 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Sep 2026
- Study start16 Jun 2025
- Primary completionMay 2027 (estimated)
- Study completionMay 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Device ConvenienceStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by The Methodist Hospital Research InstituteThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 4 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The Methodist Hospital Research Institute
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07797556
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PRO00039837
- Status last verified
- Aug 2026
- First submitted
- 24 Aug 2026
- Last updated
- 1 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: We will not share IPD at the moment.
Publications
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.
PubMed 30847653
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Use of Apple Vision Pro as a Head-mounted Virtual Monitor for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07797556
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PRO00039837
- Conditions
- Device Convenience, Device Performance, Surgeons' Rating, Ergonomics
- Keywords
- apple vision pro, virtual monitor, diagnostic procedures, therapeutic procedures
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Enrolling by invitation
- Enrolment
- 4 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- The Methodist Hospital Research InstituteUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 16 Jun 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- May 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- May 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 1 Sep 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Detailed description
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.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- 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.
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Vision correction with contacts and Lasik are acceptable.
- Surgeons who wear glasses and who have corrective lens inserts in the Apple Vision Pro.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- 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.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Overall Visualization quality compared to traditional monitor
Time frame: 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
Overall ergonomic characteristics compared to traditional monitor
Time frame: 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
NASA-TLX survey
Time frame: 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.
Feasibility of using AVP
Time frame: 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
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Sep 2026.
- Results publication: PubMed 30847653Wang 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.
- The creative endeavors of Jared E. Bendis - Visual acuity, DPI and resolutionLink provided by the sponsor.
- Optimum HDTV viewing distanceLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. We will not share IPD at the moment.
Related trials for Device Convenience
RecruitingObservational study
Muscle Health Measurements Using Electrical Impedance Myography
Myopathy, Muscular Dystrophies
Not yet recruiting
MR 7700 Multinuclear Application Clinical Trial
MR Multinuclear, Image Quality
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Device Convenience and Device Performance, run by The Methodist Hospital Research Institute at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: enrolling by invitation, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Overall Visualization quality compared to traditional monitor (time frame: Immediately post-procedure, assessed once per case, through study completion up to 12 months). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07797556, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Sep 2026.