A small randomized study found favorable satisfaction and fewer observed apnea events with virtual-reality distraction. Both groups had spinal anesthesia, so VR did not replace surgical analgesia.
Thirty-seven patients undergoing endoscopic urologic surgery were allocated to VR distraction without a sedative or repeated midazolam sedation. Patient, surgeon, and anesthesiologist satisfaction were assessed on a prespecified scale.
Anesthesiologist satisfaction favored VR. Apnea was recorded in one of eighteen VR patients and seven of nineteen midazolam patients. The small event counts should accompany the percentages when describing the result.
The trial’s sample size was based on patient satisfaction, not respiratory complications. The authors therefore cautioned that secondary outcomes could be underpowered. The satisfaction scale lacked prior validation, and patients and attending clinicians could not be blinded.
This was a single-center trial in a particular procedure setting. Its distraction approach was used alongside effective spinal anesthesia and cannot establish pain control for surgery without a regional anesthetic.
Separate analgesia, anxiety, sedation depth, satisfaction, and ventilation. The trial suggests a nonpharmacologic option can change the patient experience in selected circumstances, but it does not prove VR eliminates apnea or can replace midazolam for every procedure. It also cannot determine that an individual respiratory event was preventable by a different distraction strategy.
Original analysis of the supplied journal article, identified as PMC6352098.