Virtual Reality for Anxiety Reduction in Women Undergoing Colposcopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To test whether headset-delivered virtual reality (VR) content affects satisfaction and/or anxiety in women with cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions undergoing colposcopy and colposcopically guided cervical biopsy.

METHODS

In this single-center, randomized trial, the authors measured overall satisfaction (100-mm visual analog scale) and situation-specific anxiety (STAI-S) in 247 women with suspected cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions wearing either no VR headset (arm 1, control) or a VR headset before (arm 2) or before and during colposcopy (arm 3). Secondary endpoints were pain, discomfort, and anxiety during colposcopy, heart rate, and 72-hour follow-up parameters: overall satisfaction, bleeding severity, bleeding duration, pain, and use of analgesics. Analysis was by intention to treat.

RESULTS

Median values for overall satisfaction were 100 (interquartile range, 90-100) in controls (n = 83), 100 (95-100) in arm 2 (n = 82), and 100 (95-100) in arm 3 (n = 82), respectively ( p = .92). The median Δ of situational anxiety (baseline vs after colposcopy) was -8 (-13 to -3), -8 (-16.5 to -4), and -10 (-20.5 to -4.5), respectively ( p = .09). The secondary endpoints pain during colposcopy (20 [10-50] vs 20 [10-40] vs 30 [10-50]; p = .65), discomfort during colposcopy (30 [10-50] vs 30 [10-50] vs 20 [10-50]; p = .46), and anxiety during colposcopy (20 [0-50] vs 10 [0-40] vs 10 [0-30]; p = .44), were not different between arms. Follow-up data showed no improvement in the 2 VR arms compared with controls (overall satisfaction, p = .37; bleeding severity, p = .09; pain level, p = .89; duration of pain; p = .23; and use of analgesics; p = .39). Per-protocol analysis did not change the results.

CONCLUSIONS

A VR headset showing a 360-degree surround vision film has no effect on satisfaction or anxiety in women undergoing colposcopy.

Syringe or mask? Loop electrosurgical excision procedure under local or general anesthesia: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Loop electrosurgical excision procedure may be performed under local anesthesia or general anesthesia, and practice patterns differ worldwide. No randomized head-to-head comparison has been published to confirm or refute either practice.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare loop electrosurgical excision procedure under local anesthesia vs general anesthesia regarding patient satisfaction and procedure-related outcomes such as rates of involved margins, complications, pain, and blood loss.

STUDY DESIGN

Consecutive women referred to our colposcopy unit were recruited. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure was performed under local anesthesia with 4 intracervical injections of bupivacaine hydrochloride 0.5% or under general anesthesia with fentanyl, propofol, and a laryngeal mask with sevoflurane maintenance. The primary endpoint was patient satisfaction assessed on the day of surgery and 14 days thereafter using a Likert scale (score 0-100) and a questionnaire. Secondary endpoints included rates of involved margins, procedure-related complications, pain, blood loss, and surgeon preference. Results were compared using nonparametric and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Between July 2018 and February 2020, we randomized 208 women, 108 in the local anesthesia arm and 100 in the general anesthesia arm. In the intention-to-treat analysis, patient satisfaction did not differ between the study groups directly after surgery (Likert scale 100 [90-100] vs 100 [90-100]; P=.077) and 14 days thereafter (Likert scale 100 [80-100] vs 100 [90-100]; P=.079). In the per-protocol analysis, women in the local anesthesia arm had significantly smaller cone volumes (1.11 cm³ [0.70-1.83] vs 1.58 cm³ [1.08-2.69], respectively; P<.001), less intraoperative blood loss (Δhemoglobin, 0.2 g/dL [-0.1 to 0.4] vs 0.5 g/dL [0.2-0.9]; P<.001), and higher satisfaction after 14 days (100 [90-100] vs 100 [80-100]; P=.026), whereas surgeon preference favored general anesthesia (90 [79-100] vs 100 [90-100], respectively; P=.001). All other secondary outcomes did not differ between groups (resection margin status R1, 6.6% vs 2.1% [P=.26]; cone fragmentation, 12.1% vs 6.3% [P=.27]; procedure duration, 151.5 seconds [120-219.5] vs 180 seconds [117-241.5] [P=.34]; time to complete hemostasis, 60 seconds [34-97] vs 70 seconds [48.25-122.25] [P=.08]; complication rate, 3.3% vs 1.1% [P=.59]). In a multivariate analysis, parity (P=.03), type of transformation zone (P=.03), and cone volume (P=.02) and not study group assignment, age, body mass index, and degree of dysplasia independently influenced the primary endpoint.

CONCLUSION

Loop electrosurgical excision procedure under local anesthesia is equally well tolerated and offers patient-reported and procedure-related benefits over general anesthesia, supporting the preferred practice in some institutions and refuting the preferred practice in others.