300 Section - Applications of Mixed and Augmented Reality in Prosthetics Rehabilitation – A Systematic Review

Wednesday, May 20, 2026

6:00 PM - 7:30 PM PT

Presenting Author/Autor expositor(s)

PY

Patrick Fangping Yao, MD

Resident
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Co-Author/Coautor(s)

DM

Denis Margalik, BMSc, MASc

Medical Student
University of Toronto - Temerty Faculty of Medicine
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
PB

Paary Balakumar, B.Sc., M.Sc.

Medical Student
Michael G.DeGroote School of Medicine
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Celina Lin, MD, FRCPC, Dip. Sport Med

Physician
Hamilton Health Sciences and Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Objectives : In patients with limb loss, rehabilitation aims to restore physical function and tackle the psychosocial sequale associated. Although studies have shown the promise of extended reality solutions in prosthetic rehabilitation and limb-loss, there have been a paucity of studies that specifically reviewed the studies surrounding augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) interventions. These modalities make use of a real-world environment and can create a stronger level of proprioceptive feedback for patients compared to virtual reality. This systematic review aims to synthesize the available evidence surrounding MR/AR solutions in the context of prosthetic rehabilitation.

Design: OVID Embase, OVID Medline, Pubmed, Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from inception to April 13^th 2025. Articles were screened independently and in duplicate, and conflicts were resolved by a third author. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB 2 and Robins-I.

Results: 1273 studies were screened of which, seven met eligibility criteria, including data from 74 patients. Five studies were focused on MR, and two AR. Due to heterogeneity of studies, a meta-analysis could not be conducted. Five studies assessed efficacy in phantom limb pain, demonstrating efficacy in reducing pain with virtual limb superimposition but not with its application to mirror therapy in comparison with traditional mirror therapy. Two studies demonstrated improvement in physical therapy outcomes through pre-prosthetic strengthening and adjustments to exercise feedback, though no statistical analysis was conducted. There were no adverse events reported across all studies, and only one (1.4%) dropout from intervention intolerance.

Conclusion: The outcomes suggest that AR and MR could be powerful new tools to enhance a patient with limb loss’s rehabilitation and clinical outcomes. More studies with robust methodology and sample sizes across specific implementations of AR or MR are needed to generate more certainty in their clinical utility and implementation feasibility.