Last reviewed: November 2026. This guide is for general information and is not medical advice. Talk to a qualified clinician about any treatment decision.
Augmented reality (AR) keeps the real world in view and layers digital information on top of it. In healthcare that usually means showing a clinician something they could not otherwise see, such as a scan lined up with the patient in front of them.
Key takeaways
- Most mature use: surgical navigation, especially in spine surgery, where early clinical studies report screw-placement accuracy similar to established navigation systems.
- Most regulated area: radiology and orthopedics account for most of the AR and VR devices the FDA has authorized.
- Mixed results: vein-finding devices help in some patient groups and not clearly in others.
- Teaching: headset-based anatomy lessons have matched cadaver labs on test scores in small studies, in less time.
- Overall certainty is low: most clinical studies are small and use different measures, so reviews rate the evidence as low or very low certainty.
In this guide
What AR looks like in a clinic
AR reaches clinicians in three main forms:
- Headsets and smart glasses with see-through displays, worn by a surgeon or student.
- Tablets and phones that overlay graphics on a live camera view.
- Projection devices that shine an image directly onto the patient’s skin.
Unlike virtual reality, which replaces the user’s surroundings, AR is built for tasks where the clinician must keep looking at the patient. That is why most of its medical uses are in procedures and teaching, not in therapy delivered to patients.
How regulators treat AR
In the United States, AR products used to diagnose or guide treatment are regulated as medical devices. The FDA keeps a public list of AR and VR medical devices it has authorized. An analysis by Exponent counted 104 entries by early 2026, up from 39 at the end of 2022.
The list shows where AR has taken hold. When it stood at 69 devices in 2023, Radiology Business reported that radiology accounted for 28 and orthopedics for 25. In practice these are mostly tools for viewing scans in three dimensions and for guiding instruments during surgery.
Surgical navigation
Conventional navigation shows the surgeon a screen beside the operating table, so they must look away from the patient to check it. AR navigation puts the same guidance in the surgeon’s line of sight.
Spine surgery is the best-documented example. Placing screws in the vertebrae demands millimeter accuracy, and a headset system for this task was the first of its kind to gain FDA clearance. The first reported use in a patient described six screws, all graded as accurately placed. A later pilot study across three hospitals reported 97.7% accuracy for 86 screws, which the authors described as comparable to other computer-assisted navigation. Two procedures in that study could not be completed with the system because of technical problems with the scanner it relies on.
Looking across specialties, a 2026 systematic review of 61 clinical studies found that AR navigation showed encouraging technical accuracy and often reduced radiation exposure during surgery, with operating time sometimes shorter. It also rated the certainty of that evidence as low or very low, because studies were small and measured accuracy in different ways. The review covered oral and maxillofacial surgery, neurosurgery, spine surgery and orthopedics.
Finding veins
Vein-finding devices use near-infrared light to detect veins under the skin and project their outline onto the arm. They are one of the most widely used forms of AR in everyday care, and the research on them is a useful reminder that a clever display does not guarantee a better result.
- Children: a meta-analysis of 18 randomized trials involving 5,298 children and adolescents did not find a clear improvement in first-attempt success, and rated the evidence as low or very low certainty.
- Older adults: a 2026 meta-analysis of eight studies with 1,022 participants found higher first-attempt success with the devices than with standard care (summary at IVTEAM).
The pattern across studies is that these devices seem to help most where veins are hard to find, and add little where they are not.
Teaching anatomy
Medical schools have tested AR and mixed-reality headsets as a supplement or alternative to cadaver dissection. In a study at Case Western Reserve University, 48 medical students learned limb anatomy either with a headset program or in the cadaver lab. Students spent about 4.6 hours with the headset against 7.3 hours in the lab, and their practical exam scores were not significantly different.
This was a single school and a small group, so it shows the approach can work, not that it should replace dissection. Hands-on skills such as handling tissue are not something a headset teaches.
Limits and open questions
- Registration accuracy: the overlay is only useful if it lines up exactly with the patient, and keeping it aligned as the patient or tissue moves is the central technical challenge.
- Ergonomics and workflow: headset weight, comfort, field of view and fitting the system into operating-room routines are common complaints in clinical studies.
- Attention: information in the line of sight can distract as well as help.
- Evidence quality: few randomized trials, small samples and inconsistent measures. Accuracy is reported far more often than patient outcomes.
- Cost: published reviews rarely report cost-effectiveness.
Questions to ask about an AR product
- Is it an authorized medical device for this specific use?
- Were the supporting studies done in patients, or only on models and cadavers?
- Do the studies report patient outcomes, or only technical accuracy?
- What happens if the system fails during a procedure?
Common questions
What is augmented reality used for in healthcare?
Mainly surgical navigation, viewing medical images, finding veins and teaching anatomy.
Where is AR most established?
Surgical navigation, especially in spine surgery, where early clinical studies report screw-placement accuracy similar to established navigation systems.
How strong is the evidence for AR in healthcare?
Overall certainty is low. Most clinical studies are small and use different measures.
Sources
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality in Medical Devices.
- Exponent. FDA Expands AR/VR Medical Device List, February 2026.
- Radiology Business. FDA updates list of cleared VR, augmented reality devices, with radiology leading the way.
- Clinical accuracy, technical precision, and workflow of the first in human use of an augmented-reality head-mounted display stereotactic navigation system for spine surgery. Operative Neurosurgery, 2021.
- The XVS System during open spinal fixation procedures in patients requiring pedicle screw placement in the lumbosacral spine. World Neurosurgery, 2022.
- Nicolai N, et al. Augmented reality in navigated surgery: a systematic review of clinical accuracy and system performance. Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health, 2026.
- Effectiveness of near-infrared light devices for peripheral intravenous cannulation in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
- Xu, et al. Impact of near-infrared vein imaging on peripheral intravenous access success rates in geriatric patients. BMC Geriatrics, 2026. Summary at IVTEAM.
- Ruthberg JS, et al. Mixed reality as a time-efficient alternative to cadaveric dissection. Medical Teacher, 2020.
