Jae-Hyuk Yang1, Jae Joon Ryu2, Eunwoo Nam3, Hee-Suk Lee4, Jin Kyu Lee5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hanyang University Guri Hospital, Guri, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Biostatistical Consulting and Research Laboratory, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. VRAD Inc., Seoul, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: jklee77@hanyang.ac.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of a preoperative virtual reality (VR) experience of 3-dimensional (3D) reconstructed magnetic resonance images (MRIs) on anxiety reduction in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery. METHODS: Patients in the VR group watched a 3D model of their own MRI through a VR headset describing the anatomy of the knee as well as their own lesion of interest for an arthroscopic procedure. Patients in the non-VR (NR) group received standard preoperative information about their MRI. The primary outcome for analysis was the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale score to measure level of anxiety and the need for information in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery. Secondary outcomes were rated with visual analog scale (VAS) scores measuring patient pain, preparedness, satisfaction, and stress. RESULTS: Regarding the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale score, the sum S (surgery-related anxiety) and sum C (combined anxiety component) subscales showed significantly better outcomes in the VR group (median [interquartile range] for sum S = 2.0 [2.0-4.0], median [quartile 1-quartile 3] sum C = 4.0 [4.0-8.5]) than in the NR group (median [interquartile range] for sum S = 4.9 [3.0-5.0], median [quartile 1-quartile 3] sum C = 8.0 [5.3-9.8]) (P = .014 and P = .005, respectively). Regarding VAS scores, preoperative measures showed significantly better outcomes in satisfaction among VR group patients (95 [90.0-100.0]) in comparison to NR group patients (85 [70.0-96.0]) (P = .010). For postoperative VAS measures, the VR group (satisfaction score = 95 [90.0-100.0], stress score = 15 [2.5-37.5]) showed significantly better outcomes in satisfaction and stress in comparison to the NR group (satisfaction score = 85 [70.0-97.5], stress score = 30 [30.0-50.0]). CONCLUSIONS: Application of preoperative VR experience of 3D reconstructed knee MRIs in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery reduces anxiety around surgical encounters. The VR patient group was more satisfied overall and less stressed postoperatively. However, perioperative pain and preparedness were not affected by VR exposure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of a preoperative virtual reality (VR) experience of 3-dimensional (3D) reconstructed magnetic resonance images (MRIs) on anxiety reduction in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery. METHODS:Patients in the VR group watched a 3D model of their own MRI through a VR headset describing the anatomy of the knee as well as their own lesion of interest for an arthroscopic procedure. Patients in the non-VR (NR) group received standard preoperative information about their MRI. The primary outcome for analysis was the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale score to measure level of anxiety and the need for information in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery. Secondary outcomes were rated with visual analog scale (VAS) scores measuring patientpain, preparedness, satisfaction, and stress. RESULTS: Regarding the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale score, the sum S (surgery-related anxiety) and sum C (combined anxiety component) subscales showed significantly better outcomes in the VR group (median [interquartile range] for sum S = 2.0 [2.0-4.0], median [quartile 1-quartile 3] sum C = 4.0 [4.0-8.5]) than in the NR group (median [interquartile range] for sum S = 4.9 [3.0-5.0], median [quartile 1-quartile 3] sum C = 8.0 [5.3-9.8]) (P = .014 and P = .005, respectively). Regarding VAS scores, preoperative measures showed significantly better outcomes in satisfaction among VR group patients (95 [90.0-100.0]) in comparison to NR group patients (85 [70.0-96.0]) (P = .010). For postoperative VAS measures, the VR group (satisfaction score = 95 [90.0-100.0], stress score = 15 [2.5-37.5]) showed significantly better outcomes in satisfaction and stress in comparison to the NR group (satisfaction score = 85 [70.0-97.5], stress score = 30 [30.0-50.0]). CONCLUSIONS: Application of preoperative VR experience of 3D reconstructed knee MRIs in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery reduces anxiety around surgical encounters. The VR patient group was more satisfied overall and less stressed postoperatively. However, perioperative pain and preparedness were not affected by VR exposure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.