Application and outcome analysis of head-mounted display devices in endoscope-assisted breast augmentation surgery
10.3760/cma.j.cn114453-20250219-00034
- VernacularTitle:头戴式显示设备在内窥镜辅助假体隆乳手术中的应用与效果分析
- Author:
Guang WANG
1
;
Xiaoguang SU
Author Information
1. 天津美莱医学美容医院整形外科，天津 300011
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Breast;
Mammaplasty;
Breast augmentation;
Endoscopy;
Visual analogue Scale;
Head-mounted display
- From:
Chinese Journal of Plastic Surgery
2025;41(8):833-839
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the application value of head-mounted display (HMD) devices in endoscope-assisted breast augmentation surgery.Methods:This prospective study enrolled female patients who underwent breast augmentation at the Department of Plastic Surgery, Tianjin Meilai Medical Cosmetology Hospital from March to December 2024. According to admission time, patients were divided into a control group and an observation group. The control group underwent endoscope-assisted breast augmentation, while the observation group received the same procedure with the addition of an HMD device. Six surgeons compared the two groups in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at different time points, general comfort questionnaire (GCQ) scores, surgeons’ subjective evaluation scale scores, incidence of postoperative complications, and overall postoperative satisfaction rate based on patients’ subjective evaluations. Measurement data were analyzed by independent-samples t-test, and count data were analyzed by chi-square ( χ2) test. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results:A total of 60 female patients were included, with 30 cases in each group. Operative time and intraoperative blood loss were lower in the observation group than in the control group [(68.2±11.0) min vs. (76.3 ±13.6) min; (40.1±7.3) ml vs. (49.3±8.6) ml; both P<0.05]. Preoperative VAS scores showed no significant difference between the two groups [(7.88 ±1.28) points vs. (7.85 ±1.23) points, P> 0.05]. At 12 h and 24 h postoperatively, VAS scores in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group [(5.7 ±1.1) points vs. (6.4 ±1.2) points; (4.5 ±1.0) points vs. (5.3±1.0) points; both P<0.05]. Preoperative GCQ scores showed no significant difference [(9.6±2.2) points vs. (9.6±2.2) points, P>0.05], while postoperative GCQ scores and surgeons’ subjective evaluation scores were higher in the observation group [(16.3±3.8) points vs. (13.2 ±2.7) points; (89.7 ±11.6) points vs. (82.7 ±10.6) points; (90.3±10.5) points vs. (83.0±12.0) points; all P<0.05]. Regarding postoperative complications, the incidence of postoperative bleeding was higher in the control group [13.3% (4/30) vs. 0 (0/30), P <0.05], while the differences in hematoma (6.7% vs. 3.3%), poor incision healing (10.0% vs. 6.7%), and implant displacement (10.0% vs. 6.7%) were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). The postoperative satisfaction rate was 96.7% (29/30) in the observation group and 76.7% (23/30) in the control group, with no statistically significant difference ( P>0.05). Conclusion:The introduction of HMD devices in endoscope-assisted breast augmentation surgery can effectively expand the visualization of the operative field, shorten operative time, reduce intraoperative blood loss, alleviate early postoperative pain, and improve the surgeon’s intraoperative convenience.
