Case Report: Virtual Reality Analgesia in an Opioid Sparing Orthopedic Outpatient Clinic Setting: A Case Study

Evaluation of Virtual Reality in the Reduction of Pain During Dressing Changes in Patients With Burn Wounds: A Pilot Study

Burn injuries are among the most common life-threatening injuries for which medical attention is sought, and are accompanied by intense, severe pain, particularly during treatment. Burn therapy pain management with opioid and nonopioid analgesics is often insufficient when administered alone. Virtual reality (VR) interfaces provide an immersive experience that has demonstrable therapeutic benefits, including distraction from, and reduction of, pain. In this interventional pilot study, we assessed the correlation between VR and passive distraction and pain tolerance during burn wound treatment. This pilot study assessed patients undergoing burn wound dressing changes while receiving both pharmacological and VR intervention. Questionnaires and evaluation forms were subjectively completed by both patients and medical staff before and after treatment, and clinical metrics were recorded throughout the treatment. Forty-one patients ≥18 years old and 76.9% male that had primarily undergone ≥4 dressing changes before the study were included. Correlations were found between VR engagement during treatment and a decrease in subjective levels of nausea, anxiety, and pain sensation. Furthermore, high levels of VR engagement were correlated with high levels of VR enjoyment. These results suggest that highly engaging and enjoyable VR interfaces may reduce sensations of anxiety and pain in burn patients during dressing changes. Furthermore, these data suggest that VR technology may be applied as an adjunct therapy to pharmacological treatment in the standardization of burn wound care management. Further studies with control groups and larger sample populations are needed for better quantification of these benefits.

Can virtual reality enhance the patient experience during awake invasive procedures? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

ABSTRACT

Procedural anxiety and pain negatively affect surgical outcomes and the patient experience during awake, invasive procedures (AIPs). This systematic review aims to evaluate the effect of using virtual reality (VR) to enhance the intraprocedural patient experience during AIPs. PRISMA, Cochrane, and SWiM Reporting Items guidelines were followed. PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and medRxiv databases were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of immersive VR headsets to enhance the patient experience in adults undergoing AIPs. Sixteen studies were included. The VR and control groups comprised 685 and 677 patients, respectively. Patients underwent endoscopic procedures in 9 studies ("endoscopic") and interventions that involved a skin incision in 7 studies ("incision"). Eleven (of 13) studies demonstrated a favourable effect on procedural anxiety with VR use compared with standard intraprocedural care (85% [95% CI: 46%-100%], P = 0.011). Ten (of 13) studies demonstrated a favourable effect on pain with VR use (77% [95% CI: 38%-100%], P = 0.046). Seven (of 9) studies demonstrated a favourable VR effect on patient satisfaction (78% (95% CI: 44%-100%), P = 0.070). The effect of VR on physiological markers of anxiety and pain and requirements for additional pro re nata (PRN) analgesia and sedation were not clear. No significant differences in patient experience were identified between the "incision" and "endoscopic" subgroups. This review demonstrates that VR can feasibly be used to enhance the patient experience during AIPs by attenuating subjective perceptions of procedural anxiety and pain. However, further RCTs are required to elucidate the effect of VR on more objective measures of the patient experience.

Adding tactile feedback increases avatar ownership and makes virtual reality more effective at reducing pain in a randomized crossover study

Severe pain is a widespread health problem in need of novel treatment approaches. In the current study we used real water to give virtual objects (i.e., animated virtual water) more realistic physical properties (wet liquid qualities). Healthy volunteers aged 18-34 participated in a within-subject randomized study comparing participants' worst pain during brief thermal stimuli with (1) No Immersive Virtual Reality (VR), versus (2) during VR + no tactile feedback versus (3) VR + real water (with tactile feedback from co-located real objects). Tactile feedback significantly decreased pain intensity (VR analgesia, p < 0.01), compared to VR with no tactile feedback, and compared to No VR (baseline). Tactile feedback made the virtual water feel significantly more real, increased participant's sense of presence, and both VR conditions were distracting (significantly reduced accuracy on an attention demanding task). As a non-pharmacologic analgesic, mixed reality reduced pain by 35% in the current study, comparable to the analgesia from a moderate dose of hydromorphone in previous published experimental studies. Tactile feedback also significantly increased avatar embodiment, the participants illusion of ownership of the virtual hands, which has potential to improve the effectiveness of avatar therapy for chronic pain in future studies. Mixed reality should be tested as treatment in pain patients.

The Emerging Role of Virtual Reality as an Adjunct to Procedural Sedation and Anesthesia: A Narrative Review

Over the past 20 years, there has been a significant reduction in the incidence of adverse events associated with sedation outside of the operating room. Non-pharmacologic techniques are increasingly being used as peri-operative adjuncts to facilitate and promote anxiolysis, analgesia and sedation, and to reduce adverse events. This narrative review will briefly explore the emerging role of immersive reality in the peri-procedural care of surgical patients. Immersive virtual reality (VR) is intended to distract patients with the illusion of "being present" inside the computer-generated world, drawing attention away from their anxiety, pain, and discomfort. VR has been described for a variety of procedures that include colonoscopies, venipuncture, dental procedures, and burn wound care. As VR technology develops and the production costs decrease, the role and application of VR in clinical practice will expand. It is important for medical professionals to understand that VR is now available for prime-time use and to be aware of the growing body in the literature that supports VR.

Analgesic and Anxiolytic Effects of Virtual Reality During Minor Procedures in an Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the analgesic and anxiolytic efficacy of distraction, a nonpharmacologic intervention provided by 3-dimensional (3D) virtual reality (VR) compared with that provided by 2-dimensional (2D) VR during minor emergency department (ED) procedures.

METHODS

This randomized controlled study conducted in the ED of a teaching hospital included patients aged more than or equal to 18 years undergoing minor procedures. The patients watched the same computer-generated VR world either in 3D in a head-mounted display (intervention) or in 2D on a laptop screen (control). Our main outcomes were pain and anxiety during the procedure, assessed on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included the impression of telepresence in the computer-generated world assessed using the Igroup Presence Questionnaire, and the prevalence and intensity of cybersickness measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 117 patients. The differences in median procedural pain and anxiety levels between the 2D and 3D VR groups were not significant: -3 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] -14 to 8) and -4 mm (95% CI -15 to 3), respectively; the difference in telepresence was 2.0 point (95% CI 0 to 2.0), and the proportion difference of cybersickness was -4% (95% CI -22 to 14), with an intensity difference of -5 mm (95% CI -9 to 3).

CONCLUSION

During minor procedures in adult patients in the ED, distraction by viewing a 3D virtual world in a head-mounted VR display did not result in lower average levels of procedural pain and anxiety than that by 2D viewing on a screen despite a higher sense of telepresence. There were no significant differences in the prevalence and intensity of cybersickness between the 2 groups.

Comparison between the analgesic effectiveness and patients' preference for virtual reality vs. topical anesthesia gel during the administration of local anesthesia in adult dental patients: a randomized clinical study

This study aimed to compare the analgesic effectiveness of virtual reality vs. topical anesthesia gel during the administration of local anesthesia (injections to numb the gums) in adult dental patients; as well as to determine which approach is preferred by the patients. Twenty-one adult patients received dental anesthetic injections bilaterally for their maxillary premolars area. We predicted that VR would be more effective than a topical anesthetic gel at reducing pain during injections into the gums. Using a within subject design, each patient received two injections during a single dental visit. Pain was measured after each injection. One side was of the mouth was injected under the influence of the topical anesthesia (TA) 20% benzocaine. The other side of the mouth was injected when the patient was in virtual reality (VR) watching an animated movie using an Oculus Quest® helmet to distract them during the other injection, treatment order randomized. Immediately after each injection, the patients were directed to rate their pain experience using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain-rating Scale (W-BFPS), and to choose which delivery system they preferred. Heart rates were recorded prior to and after the injections using a finger pulse oximeter. Participants reported the predicted pattern of a lower W-PFPS score (less pain intensity) during needle injection while in VR than the injection with topical anesthesia gel, however, the difference was not statistically significant. A statistically significant majority of the participants (p = 0.021) preferred VR to TA. No statistically significant difference heart rate during VR vs. TA was found. Although dental patients reported less pain during VR distraction vs. topical gel anesthetic, the difference was not significant. A statistically significant majority of patients preferred virtual reality over topical anesthesia during their future injections. However, no significant difference in heart rate was found.

Effect of an Immersive Virtual Reality Intervention on Pain and Anxiety Associated With Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Placement in the Pediatric Setting: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The inclusion of digital therapeutics (eg, virtual reality [VR] systems) for the management of pain and anxiety associated with routine acutely painful medical procedures may have a substantial impact on treatment adherence and improve long-term health outcomes among young patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a VR intervention decreases pain and anxiety among patients undergoing peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) placement compared with standard care in the pediatric setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 12, 2017, to July 24, 2019, among 107 patients aged 10 to 21 years who were undergoing PIVC placement in 2 clinical settings (a radiology department and an infusion center) at an urban pediatric academic medical center in the US. Patients, caregivers, and clinicians completed pre-PIVC and post-PIVC placement questionnaires measuring patient pain, anxiety, and anxiety sensitivity; only participants with complete data from before and after PIVC placment were included in the analyses.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive standard care (simple distraction techniques [eg, music, coloring, singing, and talking] and the application of numbing cream) or a VR intervention using a balanced computer-generated randomization scheme stratified by sex. All patients who received the VR intervention were offered concurrent standard care; however, VR plus standard care was not specifically examined.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were patient pain (measured by the Faces Pain Scale-Revised) and anxiety (measured by a visual analogue scale) reported by the patient, caregiver, and clinician after PIVC placement. Outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear modeling with backward stepwise selection for final model building.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients (median age, 14.7 years [interquartile range, 12.8-16.9 years]; 63 male participants [58.9%]) completed the clinical trial; 54 patients received standard care, and 53 patients also received the VR intervention. Patients who received the VR intervention compared with standard care had significantly lower mean post-PIVC anxiety scores when patient-reported (1.85 points [95% CI, 1.28-2.41 points] vs 3.14 points [95% CI, 2.59-3.68 points]; P < .001) and clinician-reported (2.04 points [95% CI, 1.37-2.71 points] vs 3.34 points [95% CI, 2.69-3.99 points]; P = .002). Patients in the VR group vs the standard care group also had significantly lower mean post-PIVC pain scores when patient-reported (1.34 points [95% CI, 0.63-2.05 points] vs 2.54 points [95% CI, 1.78-3.30 points]; P = .002), caregiver-reported (1.87 points [95% CI, 0.99-2.76 points] vs 3.01 points [95% CI. 1.98-4.03 points]; P = .04), and clinician-reported (2.05 points [95% CI, 1.47-2.63 points] vs 3.59 points [95% CI, 2.97-4.22 points]; P < .001). Aside from lower levels of baseline pain and anxiety, no demographic variables among patients in the VR group were associated with lower levels of post-PIVC pain and anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial, patients undergoing PIVC placement who received a VR intervention experienced significantly less anxiety and pain compared with those who received standard care. The use of patient, caregiver, and clinician data provided a variety of subjective information, as well as observable and objective data regarding perceived pain and anxiety beyond patient reporting alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: CHLA-15-00549.

Interacting with virtual objects via embodied avatar hands reduces pain intensity and diverts attention

The current study introduces a new paradigm for exploring cognitive factors in pain. Interacting with virtual objects via embodied avatar hands increased the illusion of “being there” in the virtual world, increased VR analgesia for acute pain, and reduced accuracy on an attention demanding task. Twenty-four healthy volunteer college students participated in this within-subject randomized crossover design study. During Phase 1, each participant received brief thermal pain stimuli during interactive embodied avatar VR vs. passive VR (no avatar and no interactivity), VR treatment order randomized. After each pain stimulus, participants provided subjective 0–10 ratings of pain. Compared to the passive VR condition, during the interactive avatar VR, participants reported significant reductions in (1) worst pain, (2) pain unpleasantness, (3) time thinking about pain and (4). they had significantly more fun during the pain stimulus (p = .000 for each). During Phase 2, participants performed a divided attention task in each of the two VR conditions. Participants made significantly more errors on the divided attention task during the interactive avatar VR condition, compared to passive VR, implicating an attention mechanism for how virtual reality reduces pain and helping understand how VR influences pain perception.

Trial registration: NCT04245475. Date of registration: 29/01/2020.

Virtual Reality Analgesia for Children With Large Severe Burn Wounds During Burn Wound Debridement

The objective of this study was to compare the effect of adjunctive virtual reality vs. standard analgesic pain medications during burn wound cleaning/debridement. Participants were predominantly Hispanic children aged 6-17 years of age, with large severe burn injuries (TBSA = 44%) reporting moderate or higher baseline pain during burn wound care. Using a randomized between-groups design, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups, (a) the Control Group = pain medications only or (b) the VR Group = pain medications + virtual reality. A total of 50 children (88% Hispanic) with large severe burns (mean TBSA > 10%) received severe burn wound cleaning sessions. For the primary outcome measure of worst pain (intensity) on Study Day 1, using a between groups ANOVA, burn injured children in the group that received virtual reality during wound care showed significantly less pain intensity than the No VR control group, [mean worst pain ratings for the No VR group = 7.46 (SD = 2.93) vs. 5.54 (SD = 3.56), F (1,48) = 4.29, <0.05, MSE = 46.00]. Similarly, one of the secondary pain measures, "lowest pain during wound care" was significantly lower in the VR group, No VR = 4.29 (SD = 3.75) vs. 1.68 (2.04) for the VR group, F(147) = 9.29, < 0.005, MSE = 83.52 for Study Day 1. The other secondary pain measures showed the predicted pattern on Study Day 1, but were non-significant. Regarding whether VR reduced pain beyond Study Day 1, absolute change in pain intensity (analgesia = baseline pain minus the mean of the worst pain scores on Study days 1-10) was significantly greater for the VR group, F (148) = 4.88, p < 0.05, MSE = 34.26, partial eta squared = 0.09, but contrary to predictions, absolute change scores were non-significant for all secondary measures.