Preoperative Virtual Reality for Pediatric Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pediatric Anesthesia Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-23 DOI:10.1111/pan.70016
Difang Zhao, Ting Tian, Shuguang Jin
{"title":"Preoperative Virtual Reality for Pediatric Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Difang Zhao, Ting Tian, Shuguang Jin","doi":"10.1111/pan.70016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia often face stress responses, anesthetic challenges, and delayed recovery. Virtual reality has emerged as a promising non-pharmacological intervention, though its effectiveness varies across studies. This meta-analysis evaluates the effects of preoperative virtual reality interventions on various outcomes in pediatric patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials with intention-to-treat analysis comparing preoperative virtual reality interventions with standard care in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia. Primary outcomes included preoperative anxiety (Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale, change in Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale) and compliance during anesthesia induction (Induction Compliance Checklist). Secondary outcomes included preoperative fear (Children's Fear Scale), procedural behavior (Procedural Behavior Rating Scale), postoperative pain (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale, Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale), postoperative delirium (Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium scale), and parental satisfaction. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.1, with results presented as weighted mean differences and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve RCTs were included. Compared to the control group, the virtual reality group had lower Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale scores (weighted mean difference: -12.69, 95% confidence interval: -16.17 to -9.20, p < 0.001, low evidence), greater change in Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale scores (weighted mean difference: -9.54, 95% confidence interval: -12.98 to -6.10, p < 0.001, low evidence), lower Induction Compliance Checklist scores (weighted mean difference: -1.67, 95% confidence interval: -2.02 to -1.32, p < 0.001, low evidence), lower Children's Fear Scale scores (weighted mean difference: -2.30, 95% confidence interval: -2.54 to -2.07, p < 0.001, moderate evidence), lower Procedural Behavior Rating Scale scores (weighted mean difference: -1.00, 95% confidence interval: -1.12 to -0.88, p < 0.001, moderate evidence), lower Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale scores (weighted mean difference: -0.26, 95% confidence interval: -0.35 to -0.18, p < 0.001, moderate evidence), lower Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale scores (weighted mean difference: -0.44, 95% confidence interval: -0.61 to -0.28, p < 0.001, moderate evidence), and higher parental satisfaction scores (weighted mean difference: 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 0.77, p < 0.001, moderate evidence). For categorical Induction Compliance Checklist, the virtual reality group showed significantly more perfect scores (odds ratio: 3.53, 95% confidence interval: 2.04 to 6.09, p < 0.001, moderate evidence) and fewer moderate and poor scores (odds ratio: 0.28, 95% confidence interval: 0.16 to 0.49, p < 0.001, moderate evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in emergence delirium (odds ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 1.89, p = 0.86, low evidence).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on low to moderate quality evidence, preoperative virtual reality significantly improves compliance during anesthesia induction and offers possibly clinically significant improvements in preoperative anxiety, fear, procedural behavior, and parental satisfaction in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia. However, virtual reality shows a very low likelihood of clinical effect on postoperative pain, based on its very small effect size, and clearly no clinical effect on emergence delirium.</p>","PeriodicalId":19745,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Anesthesia","volume":" ","pages":"889-903"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12501672/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.70016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia often face stress responses, anesthetic challenges, and delayed recovery. Virtual reality has emerged as a promising non-pharmacological intervention, though its effectiveness varies across studies. This meta-analysis evaluates the effects of preoperative virtual reality interventions on various outcomes in pediatric patients.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials with intention-to-treat analysis comparing preoperative virtual reality interventions with standard care in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia. Primary outcomes included preoperative anxiety (Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale, change in Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale) and compliance during anesthesia induction (Induction Compliance Checklist). Secondary outcomes included preoperative fear (Children's Fear Scale), procedural behavior (Procedural Behavior Rating Scale), postoperative pain (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale, Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale), postoperative delirium (Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium scale), and parental satisfaction. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.1, with results presented as weighted mean differences and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) were also assessed.

Results: Twelve RCTs were included. Compared to the control group, the virtual reality group had lower Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale scores (weighted mean difference: -12.69, 95% confidence interval: -16.17 to -9.20, p < 0.001, low evidence), greater change in Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale scores (weighted mean difference: -9.54, 95% confidence interval: -12.98 to -6.10, p < 0.001, low evidence), lower Induction Compliance Checklist scores (weighted mean difference: -1.67, 95% confidence interval: -2.02 to -1.32, p < 0.001, low evidence), lower Children's Fear Scale scores (weighted mean difference: -2.30, 95% confidence interval: -2.54 to -2.07, p < 0.001, moderate evidence), lower Procedural Behavior Rating Scale scores (weighted mean difference: -1.00, 95% confidence interval: -1.12 to -0.88, p < 0.001, moderate evidence), lower Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale scores (weighted mean difference: -0.26, 95% confidence interval: -0.35 to -0.18, p < 0.001, moderate evidence), lower Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale scores (weighted mean difference: -0.44, 95% confidence interval: -0.61 to -0.28, p < 0.001, moderate evidence), and higher parental satisfaction scores (weighted mean difference: 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 0.77, p < 0.001, moderate evidence). For categorical Induction Compliance Checklist, the virtual reality group showed significantly more perfect scores (odds ratio: 3.53, 95% confidence interval: 2.04 to 6.09, p < 0.001, moderate evidence) and fewer moderate and poor scores (odds ratio: 0.28, 95% confidence interval: 0.16 to 0.49, p < 0.001, moderate evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in emergence delirium (odds ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 1.89, p = 0.86, low evidence).

Conclusion: Based on low to moderate quality evidence, preoperative virtual reality significantly improves compliance during anesthesia induction and offers possibly clinically significant improvements in preoperative anxiety, fear, procedural behavior, and parental satisfaction in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia. However, virtual reality shows a very low likelihood of clinical effect on postoperative pain, based on its very small effect size, and clearly no clinical effect on emergence delirium.

儿童全麻患者术前虚拟现实:一项随机对照试验的meta分析。
背景:接受全身麻醉的儿科患者经常面临应激反应、麻醉挑战和延迟恢复。虚拟现实已经成为一种很有前途的非药物干预手段,尽管其有效性在不同的研究中有所不同。本荟萃分析评估了术前虚拟现实干预对儿科患者各种结局的影响。方法:检索PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆和Web of Science,对接受全身麻醉的儿科患者进行术前虚拟现实干预与标准护理的随机对照试验进行意向治疗分析。主要结局包括术前焦虑(改良耶鲁术前焦虑量表,改良耶鲁术前焦虑量表的变化)和麻醉诱导时的依从性(诱导依从性检查表)。次要结局包括术前恐惧(儿童恐惧量表)、程序行为(程序行为评定量表)、术后疼痛(面部、腿部、活动、哭泣、安慰量表、Wong-Baker面部疼痛评定量表)、术后谵妄(小儿麻醉紧急谵妄量表)和父母满意度。使用Review Manager 5.4.1对数据进行分析,结果以加权平均差异和95%置信区间的优势比表示。证据的确定性(建议分级、评估、发展和评价)也进行了评估。结果:纳入12项随机对照试验。与对照组相比,虚拟现实组的改良耶鲁术前焦虑量表得分较低(加权平均差:-12.69,95%可信区间:-16.17 ~ -9.20,p)。基于低到中等质量的证据,术前虚拟现实显着提高了麻醉诱导的依从性,并可能对全麻儿科患者术前焦虑、恐惧、程序行为和父母满意度有临床意义的改善。然而,虚拟现实对术后疼痛的临床效果可能性非常低,基于其很小的效应量,并且对出现性谵妄明显没有临床效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pediatric Anesthesia
Pediatric Anesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
222
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Devoted to the dissemination of research of interest and importance to practising anesthetists everywhere, the scientific and clinical content of Pediatric Anesthesia covers a wide selection of medical disciplines in all areas relevant to paediatric anaesthesia, pain management and peri-operative medicine. The International Editorial Board is supported by the Editorial Advisory Board and a team of Senior Advisors, to ensure that the journal is publishing the best work from the front line of research in the field. The journal publishes high-quality, relevant scientific and clinical research papers, reviews, commentaries, pro-con debates, historical vignettes, correspondence, case presentations and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信