Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36129891›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2022

Virtual reality immersion compared to monitored anesthesia care for hand surgery: A randomized controlled trial.

Adeel A Faruki, Thy B Nguyen, Doris-Vanessa Gasangwa, Nadav Levy, Sam Proeschel, Jessica Yu, Victoria Ip, Marie McGourty, Galina Korsunsky, Victor Novack and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Adeel A FarukiDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora, CO, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5720-9070
Thy B NguyenUniversity of Colorado Medical School, Aurora, CO, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2354-345X
Doris-Vanessa GasangwaSt. George's University School of Medicine Grenada, St. George's, West Indies, Grenada.
Nadav LevyBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Sam ProeschelBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Jessica YuCase Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America.
Victoria IpNova Southeastern School of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, FL, United States of America.
Marie McGourtyUniversity of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Galina KorsunskyDepartment of Anesthesiology, Spectrum Healthcare Partners, Portland, ME, United States of America.
Victor NovackResearch Authority and Clinical Research, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Ariel L MuellerAnesthesia Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Valerie Banner-GoodspeedBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7644-2521
Tamara D RozentalDivision of Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5003-0924
Brian P O'GaraBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USNova Southeastern University · USSoroka Medical Center · ILSpectrum Health · USSt. George's University · GDUniversity of Colorado Denver · USUniversity of Colorado Hospital · USUniversity of Massachusetts Boston · USUniversity School · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCommon anesthesia practice for hand surgery combines a preoperative regional anesthetic and intraoperative monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Despite adequate regional anesthesia, patients may receive doses of intraoperative sedatives which can result in oversedation and potentially avoidable complications. VR could prove to be a valuable tool for patients and providers by distracting the mind from processing noxious stimuli resulting in minimized sedative use and reduced risk of oversedation without negatively impacting patient satisfaction. Our hypothesis was that intraoperative VR use reduces sedative dosing during elective hand surgery without detracting from patient satisfaction as compared to a usual care control.

methodsForty adults undergoing hand surgery were randomized to receive either intraoperative VR in addition to MAC, or usual MAC. Patients in both groups received preoperative regional anesthesia at provider discretion. Intraoperatively, the VR group viewed programming of their choice via a head-mounted display. The primary outcome was intraoperative propofol dose per hour (mg · hr-1). Secondary outcomes included patient reported pain and anxiety, overall satisfaction, functional outcome, and post anesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay (LOS).

resultsOf the 40 enrolled patients, 34 completed the perioperative portion of the trial. VR group patients received significantly less propofol per hour than the control group (Mean (±SD): 125.3 (±296.0) vs 750.6 (±334.6) mg · hr-1, p<0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in patient reported overall satisfaction, (0-100 scale, Median (IQR) 92 (77-100) vs 100 (100-100), VR vs control, p = 0.087). There were no significant differences between groups in PACU pain scores, perioperative opioid analgesic dose, or in postoperative functional outcome. PACU LOS was significantly decreased in the VR group (53.0 (43.0-72.0) vs 75.0 (57.5-89.0) min, p = 0.018).

conclusionVR immersion during hand surgery led to significant reductions in intraoperative propofol dose and PACU LOS without negatively impacting key patient reported outcomes.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, ConductionPropofolVirtual RealityAdultAnalgesics, OpioidHandHumansHypnotics and SedativesImmersionPostoperative PainAnalgesics, OpioidHypnotics and SedativesPropofol

Identifiers

PMID36129891
PMCPMC9491608
OpenAlexW4296545286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.