Virtual reality distraction decreases routine intravenous sedation and procedure-related pain during preoperative adductor canal catheter insertion: a retrospective study.
10.4097/kjae.2017.70.4.439
- Author:
Pooja G PANDYA
1
;
T Edward KIM
;
Steven K HOWARD
;
Erica STARY
;
Jody C LENG
;
Oluwatobi O HUNTER
;
Edward R MARIANO
Author Information
1. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA. emariano@stanford.edu
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Opioids;
Perineural catheter;
Quality improvement;
Regional anesthesia;
Ultrasound;
Virtual reality
- MeSH:
Acute Pain;
Analgesics, Opioid;
Anesthesia, Conduction;
Anesthesiology;
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee;
Blood Pressure;
Catheters*;
Fentanyl;
Humans;
Methods;
Midazolam;
Quality Improvement;
Retrospective Studies*;
Ultrasonography
- From:Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
2017;70(4):439-445
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) distraction is a nonpharmacological method to prevent acute pain that has not yet been thoroughly explored for anesthesiology. We present our experience using VR distraction to decrease routine intravenous sedation for patients undergoing preoperative perineural catheter insertion. METHODS: This 1-month quality improvement project involved all elective unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty patients who received a preoperative adductor canal catheter. Clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. For the first half of the month, all patients received usual care; intravenous sedation was administered at the discretion of the regional anesthesiologist. For the second half of the month, patients were offered VR distraction with intravenous sedation upon request. The primary outcome was fentanyl dosage; other outcomes included midazolam dosage, procedure-related pain, procedural time, and blood pressure changes. RESULTS: Seven patients received usual care and seven used VR. In the VR group, 1/7 received intravenous sedation versus 6/7 who received usual care (P = 0.029). The fentanyl dose was lower (median [10th–90th percentiles]) in the VR group (0 [0–20] µg) versus the non-VR group (50 [30–100] µg; P = 0.008). Midazolam use was lower in the VR group (0 [0–0] mg) than in the non-VR group (1 [0–1] mg; P = 0.024). Procedure-related pain was lower in the VR group (1 [1–4] NRS) versus the non-VR group (3 [2–6] NRS; P = 0.032). There was no difference in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: VR distraction may provide an effective nonpharmacological alternative to intravenous sedation for the ultrasound-guided placement of certain perineural catheters.
