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

Impact of virtual reality distraction during colonoscopy vs intravenous deep sedation: Results of a single-center randomized controlled trial. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background And Study Aims: Colonoscopy is associated with discomfort that requires intravenous sedation (IVS). The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to explore the feasibility of virtual reality distraction (VRD) for colonoscopy using two primary endpoints: cecal intubation rate and the rate of rescue with IVS.

Patients And Methods: Patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy with IVS were randomized in a 2:1 ratio in favor of VRD, with rescue IVS by propofol if needed. VRD involved use of a device providing a visual and auditive experience similar to clinical hypnosis.

Results: Ninety patients were included (VRD:60, IVS: 30). Cecal intubation rate was similar in both groups (92.8% for VRD vs 100% for IVS, =0.3). The rate of rescue IVS in the VRD group was 63.6%. There was a decrease in median total dose of propofol per patient in the VRD group (1.15 mg/kg for VRD and 4.41 mg/kg for IVS, <0.001) and in the subgroup of VRD patients who received IVS rescue (3.17 mg/kg for VRD and 4.41 mg/kg for IVS, =0.003). The median level of pain was higher and the median level of comfort was lower in the VRD group (respectively 3 vs 0, <0.001 and 7 vs 10, <0.001).

Conclusions: This RCT provides preliminary data to better understand the feasibility of VRD for colonoscopy. We have not identified differences in procedure outcomes compared with conventional IVS, but nevertheless, higher pain and lower comfort scores were reported.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11922172PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-2520-9768DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

virtual reality
8
reality distraction
8
randomized controlled
8
controlled trial
8
cecal intubation
8
intubation rate
8
rate rescue
8
rescue ivs
8
vrd group
8
ivs
7

Similar Publications