A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

The use of a virtual reality device (HypnoVR®) during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for urinary stones: A case-control study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Introduction: Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a standard of care for the management of urinary stones up to 2cm. Although it is generally well-tolerated, ESWL can be a painful procedure for some patients. Virtual reality devices (VRDs) have recently proven to be useful in reducing patient-reported pain during SWL. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a VRD during SWL in a case-control study.

Materials And Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data of patients undergoing SWL at a single academic stone center. According to patient preference and device availability, a number of procedures were performed using a VRD (HypnoVR®, Strasbourg, France). Patients who underwent more than one SWL session, with at least one session using a VRD, were enrolled in a case-control study (group 1: SWL with VRD, and group 2: SWL without VRD). Periprocedural data were collected. A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to measure pain tolerance. Descriptive statistics, Chi test and t-test were used to compare the 2 cohorts.

Results: A total of 103 procedures with VRD were performed, and 69 procedures were included in the control group. No significant differences in terms of sex, age, BMI, and comorbidities were found between the two groups. In group 1, the median (IQR) stone volume was 109 (78-189) mm with a median (IQR) density of 1100 (900-1400) HU, and the stone was located in the kidney in 56 (54%) patients. In the control group, the median (IQR) stone volume was 164 (104-245) mm, the median (IQR) density was 1195 (918-1356), and stones located in the kidney in 42 (61%) patients. The median (IQR) number of shockwaves was 2831 (2377-3004) in the VRD group versus 2622 (2287-3001) in the control group. The median (IQR) VAS score was comparable between the 2 cohorts: 5 (3-6) in group 1 and 5 (2-5) in group 2. No VRD-related side effects or interruptions have been reported.

Conclusion: This study confirms that the use of VRD during SWL is safe, feasible and well-tolerated. However, current results do not demonstrate a reduction in pain during the procedure compared to a control group. VRD may be proposed to patients undergoing SWL.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fjurol.2025.102871DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

median iqr
24
control group
16
group median
12
group
10
swl
9
vrd
9
virtual reality
8
extracorporeal shockwave
8
shockwave lithotripsy
8
urinary stones
8

Similar Publications