| Literature DB >> 33475848 |
Hannes Götz Kenngott1, Micha Pfeiffer2,3, Anas Amin Preukschas1, Lisa Bettscheider1, Philipp Anthony Wise1, Martin Wagner1, Stefanie Speidel2,3, Matthias Huber2, Felix Nickel1, Arianeb Mehrabi1, Beat Peter Müller-Stich4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) with head-mounted displays (HMD) may improve medical training and patient care by improving display and integration of different types of information. The aim of this study was to evaluate among different healthcare professions the potential of an interactive and immersive VR environment for liver surgery that integrates all relevant patient data from different sources needed for planning and training of procedures.Entities:
Keywords: Head-mounted display; Liver surgery; Operation planning; Remote communication; Surgical training; Virtual reality; Virtual tumor board
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33475848 PMCID: PMC8741674 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-08246-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Surg Endosc ISSN: 0930-2794 Impact factor: 4.584
Fig. 1Virtual Reality environment from inside the Oculus Rift®. Patient information (left), 3D-model (middle), and original sectional imaging (right)
Patient information of the visualized patient
| Patient vignette | |
|---|---|
| Pathology | Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma |
| TNM | pT2a Nx M0 |
| Stage | II |
| Symptoms | Painless jaundice |
| Past medical history | Arterial hypertension s/p hepatitis A/B glaucoma Preoperative medication: none |
| Past surgical history | None |
| Planned operation | Extended right hemihepatectomy |
Fig. 2IMHOTEP virtual reality system workflow
Questionnaire with median answers and interquartile ranges on the Likert scale, as well as percentage of positive responses (rating of 4 or 5)
| Question | All ( | Medical students ( | Resident surgeons ( | Attending surgeons ( | Nurse ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Medical education background? | Student | Resident | Attending | Nurse | ||
| 2. Was the VR environment pleasant? | 4 (4–5) 89.9% | 4 (4–5) 91.2% | 4 (4–5) 85.7% | 4 (4–5) 76.9% | 4 (4–5) 94.3% | 0.946 |
| 3. Is the assessment of complex cases better with VR than with standard display? | 5 (4–5) 94.3% | 5 (4–5) 91.2% | 5 (4–5) 85.7% | 4 (4–5) 100% | 5 (4–5) 94.3% | 0.18 |
| 4. Is the assessment of complex cases faster? | 4 (4–5) 84.8% | 4 (4–5) 86.0% | 4 (4–5) 80.0% | 4 (4–5) 76.9% | 5 (4–5) 88.7% | 0.21 |
| 5. How highly do you rate the potential for medical student training? | 4 (4–5) 87.3% | 4 (4–5) 84.2% | 4 (3–5) 85.7% | 4 (3–5) 76.9% | 4 (4–5) 94.3% | 0.75 |
| 6. How highly do you rate the potential for resident training? | 4 (4–5) 84.6% | 4 (4–5) 85.7% | 4 (4–5) 76.5% | 4 (4–5) 69.2% | 4 (4–5) 92.5% | 0.711 |
| 7. How highly do you rate the potential for clinical use? | 4 (4–5) 80.3% | 4 (4–5) 87.7% | 4 (4–5) 64.7% | 4 (3–5) 69.2% | 5 (4–5) 84.9% | |
| 8. How highly do you rate the potential for nurse training? | 4 (3–5) 54.8% | 3 (2–4) 31.6% | 3.5 (3–4.75) 50.0% | 3 (2–4) 38.5% | 5 (4–5) 86.8% | |
| 9. How many years until daily clinical use? (years) | 4.76 | 5.39 | 4.26 | 5.46 | 4.28 | |
| 10. Free comments | Various (see results) | |||||
Significant p values in bold
1The difference in answers between nurses and medical students (p = 0.02), as well as nurses and residents (p = 0.016), were significant; 2The difference in answers between nurses and medical students (p < 0.001), nurses and residents (p = 0.001), and nurses and attendings (p = 0.001) were significant; 3The difference in answers between nurses and medical students (p = 0.003) was significant
Evaluation of the technology potential for training and clinical use by profession
| Participants | Medical student training | Resident training | Clinical use | Nurse training | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medical students | 4 (4–5) 84.2% | 4 (4–5) 85.7% | 4 (4–5) 87.7% | 3 (2–4) 31.6% | |
| Resident surgeons | 4 (3–5) 85.7% | 4 (4–5) 76.5% | 4 (4–5) 64.7% | 3.5 (3–4.75) 50% | 0.14 |
| Attending surgeons | 4 (3–5) 76.9% | 4 (4–5) 69.2% | 4 (3–5) 69.2% | 3 (2–4) 38.5% | 0.093 |
| Nurses | 4 (4–5) 94.3% | 4 (4–5) 92.5% | 5 (4–5) 84.9% | 5 (4–5) 86.8% | 0.069 |
Answers displayed as median and interquartile ranges on the Likert scale, as well as percentage of positive responses (rating of 4 or 5). Significant p values in bold
1Medical students’ assessment of potential for nurse training differed significantly from the assessment of potential for medical student training (p < 0.001), resident training (p < 0.001), and clinical use (p < 0.001)