Arnav Barve1 , Dave Moore2, Jake McDonnell1, Katherine Egan1, Kevin Clesham2, Horea Pop1, Keith Synnott1, Sam Lynch1, Marcus Timlin1, Seamus Morris1, Stacey Darwish1 and Joseph Butler1
1.National Spinal Injuries Unit, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland ![]()
2. Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
Correspondence to: Arnav Barve, arnav.barve@ucdconnect.ie

Additional information
- Ethical approval: N/a
- Consent: N/a
- Funding: No industry funding
- Conflicts of interest: N/a
- Author contribution: Various as shown
- Guarantor: Arnav Barve
- Provenance and peer-review: Unsolicited and externally peer-reviewed
- Data availability statement: N/a
Keywords: Mixed reality spine navigation, Posterior spinal instrumentation, Brainlab navigation system, Intraoperative 3d overlay workflow, Logistical-economic analysis.
Peer Review
Received: 20 November 2025
Accepted: 24 November 2025
Version accepted: 1
Published: 27 December 2025
VRiMS Inaugural Conference Abstract
Plain Language Summary Infographic

Abstract
Introduction: Mixed Reality (MR) navigation overlays three-dimensional anatomical reconstructions into the surgeon’s operative field. This study presents a case series describing the clinical application, workflow integration, and logisticaleconomic considerations of the Brainlab Spine MR Navigation System in spinal surgery.
Methods: A retrospective review was performed using data from all spinal procedures completed with the Brainlab MR navigation platform between September 2024 and March 2025. Fifteen patients underwent posterior procedures, including trauma, degenerative, oncologic, and deformity cases. Operative approach, levels fused, use of minimally invasive techniques, setup time, and intraoperative workflow integration were documented. Postoperative imaging was reviewed for hardware placement and alignment.
Results: MR was implemented in six trauma, five degenerative, three oncologic, and one deformity case. Four procedures (27%) used percutaneous techniques. The mean number of levels fused was 2.9 (range 1–8). The MR system added approximately 3–5 minutes for registration, with headset re-registration required in three cases, resolved without significant delay. No intraoperative complications were attributable to MR use. Postoperative imaging confirmed correct hardware positioning and satisfactory alignment in all patients. Surgeons reported benefit in percutaneous stabilisations and tumour resections from continuous 3D overlays. The 3-year cost for a dual-headset system was €59,660 with no ongoing per-case consumable costs.
Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of MR navigation in posterior spinal procedures. The system integrates efficiently into existing workflows, enhances spatial awareness, and may offer particular value in minimally invasive and tumour cases. Further prospective studies are required to assess outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and broader adoption potential.
Cite this article as:
Barve A, Moore D, McDonnell J, Egan K, Clesham K, Pop H, Synnott K, Lynch S, Timlin M, Morris S, Darwish S and Butler J. Integrating Mixed Reality Navigation in Spine Surgery: Experience from a National Spinal Injuries Unit and Logistical-Economic Analysis. Premier Journal of Science 2025;14:100193








