Medical Extended Reality in Perioperative Medicine: A Scoping Review of Intervention Development, Feasibility Evaluation, and Translational Readiness

IF 5
Megan Crooks MA, Kailey E. Penner BA (Hons), Hilary Johnson MPT, Thomas J. Caruso MD, PhD, Vanessa A. Olbrecht MD, MBA, Hunter G. Hoffman PhD, Elizabeth Rossmann Beel MD, MPH, Kathleen Chen MD, MS, Sam R. Sharar MD, Jeffrey I. Gold PhD, Christopher D. King PhD, Renée El-Gabalawy PhD
{"title":"Medical Extended Reality in Perioperative Medicine: A Scoping Review of Intervention Development, Feasibility Evaluation, and Translational Readiness","authors":"Megan Crooks MA,&nbsp;Kailey E. Penner BA (Hons),&nbsp;Hilary Johnson MPT,&nbsp;Thomas J. Caruso MD, PhD,&nbsp;Vanessa A. Olbrecht MD, MBA,&nbsp;Hunter G. Hoffman PhD,&nbsp;Elizabeth Rossmann Beel MD, MPH,&nbsp;Kathleen Chen MD, MS,&nbsp;Sam R. Sharar MD,&nbsp;Jeffrey I. Gold PhD,&nbsp;Christopher D. King PhD,&nbsp;Renée El-Gabalawy PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.mcpdig.2026.100393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To characterize methodological features, intervention characteristics, and outcome trends of medical extended reality (MXR) applications for perioperative patients.</div></div><div><h3>Patients and Methods</h3><div>This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Searches were conducted in January 2025 and updated on August 12, 2025, across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, IEEE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, arXiv, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Primary studies evaluating immersive MXR interventions in perioperative patients were included.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 5883 records identified, 190 studies published between 2012 and 2026 were included. Most studies involved adult populations (69.5%), used virtual reality (95.8%), and delivered interventions preoperatively, most often targeting anxiety or pain. Studies were predominantly randomized controlled trials evaluating efficacy (48.4%), with few early developmental studies incorporating user-centered design (2.6%). Early-stage feasibility studies (47.9%) showed substantial methodological and outcome heterogeneity, with patient satisfaction (25.3%) and feasibility (18.4%) infrequently prioritized as primary outcomes. Studies commonly evaluated multiple intervention mechanisms, such as distraction and education, within single designs (35.3%), and some delivered interventions across multiple perioperative phases (10.5%). Few studies included MXR comparator conditions (6.8%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Perioperative MXR shows promising signals of efficacy and feasibility based on reported study outcomes; however, these favorable trends should be interpreted cautiously given possible publication bias and the absence of a formal risk-of-bias assessment. Limited use of user-centered design, inconsistent and nonvalidated measurement of feasibility outcomes, and mechanistic ambiguity may constrain translation. Greater alignment with staged development frameworks and more rigorous feasibility evaluation are needed to support implementation. Preregistration: <span><span>https://osf.io/nkwfy/wiki?wiki=yqanp</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74127,"journal":{"name":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100393"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13562372/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949761226000593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To characterize methodological features, intervention characteristics, and outcome trends of medical extended reality (MXR) applications for perioperative patients.

Patients and Methods

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Searches were conducted in January 2025 and updated on August 12, 2025, across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, IEEE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, arXiv, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Primary studies evaluating immersive MXR interventions in perioperative patients were included.

Results

Of 5883 records identified, 190 studies published between 2012 and 2026 were included. Most studies involved adult populations (69.5%), used virtual reality (95.8%), and delivered interventions preoperatively, most often targeting anxiety or pain. Studies were predominantly randomized controlled trials evaluating efficacy (48.4%), with few early developmental studies incorporating user-centered design (2.6%). Early-stage feasibility studies (47.9%) showed substantial methodological and outcome heterogeneity, with patient satisfaction (25.3%) and feasibility (18.4%) infrequently prioritized as primary outcomes. Studies commonly evaluated multiple intervention mechanisms, such as distraction and education, within single designs (35.3%), and some delivered interventions across multiple perioperative phases (10.5%). Few studies included MXR comparator conditions (6.8%).

Conclusion

Perioperative MXR shows promising signals of efficacy and feasibility based on reported study outcomes; however, these favorable trends should be interpreted cautiously given possible publication bias and the absence of a formal risk-of-bias assessment. Limited use of user-centered design, inconsistent and nonvalidated measurement of feasibility outcomes, and mechanistic ambiguity may constrain translation. Greater alignment with staged development frameworks and more rigorous feasibility evaluation are needed to support implementation. Preregistration: https://osf.io/nkwfy/wiki?wiki=yqanp.
围手术期医学的扩展现实:干预发展、可行性评估和转化准备的范围综述。
目的:探讨医学扩展现实(MXR)应用于围手术期患者的方法学特点、干预特点及预后趋势。患者和方法:本综述按照JBI证据合成手册进行。检索于2025年1月进行,并于2025年8月12日更新,检索对象包括MEDLINE、Embase、Scopus、IEEE、b谷歌Scholar、Cochrane Library、arXiv和ProQuest。纳入了评估围手术期患者沉浸式MXR干预的初步研究。结果:在确定的5883条记录中,包括了2012年至2026年间发表的190项研究。大多数研究涉及成年人(69.5%),使用虚拟现实(95.8%),并在术前进行干预,最常见的是针对焦虑或疼痛。研究主要是评估疗效的随机对照试验(48.4%),很少有早期发展研究采用以用户为中心的设计(2.6%)。早期可行性研究(47.9%)显示出大量的方法学和结果异质性,患者满意度(25.3%)和可行性(18.4%)很少被优先考虑为主要结果。研究通常在单一设计中评估多种干预机制,如分心和教育(35.3%),一些研究在多个围手术期进行干预(10.5%)。很少有研究包括MXR比较条件(6.8%)。结论:根据已报道的研究结果,围手术期MXR显示出有希望的有效性和可行性信号;然而,考虑到可能的发表偏倚和缺乏正式的偏倚风险评估,这些有利趋势应谨慎解释。有限的以用户为中心的设计,不一致和未经验证的可行性结果测量,以及机制歧义可能会限制翻译。需要与分阶段开发框架更加一致,并进行更严格的可行性评估,以支持实施。预先登记:https://osf.io/nkwfy/wiki?wiki=yqanp。
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
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health Medicine and Dentistry (General), Health Informatics, Public Health and Health Policy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
47 days
×
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
小红书