Monitoring pain during use of virtual reality in debridement procedures of vascular wounds in outpatient care settings
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Virtual Reality (VR) is an advanced technological system which, besides its use in entertainment and education, has been permanently introduced over the past quarter-century into physical and psychiatric rehabilitation as well as medicine. Its effectiveness has been demonstrated in pain management during medical and rehabilitation procedures in burn patients, alleviation of cancer pain, and reduction of labor pain. VR is increasingly used during routine medical procedures in children, such as blood sampling, intravenous cannulation, and vaccination, and holds promise for chronic pain management. Objective The aim of this study was to assess pain during the treatment of hard-to-heal wounds of vascular origin using VR as an adjunct non-pharmacological pain therapy. Materials and methods An observational study was conducted in a chronic wound care clinic involving 100 patients. The mean age was 68.02 ± 10.0 years. All participants had hard-to-heal wounds of vascular origin. The mean wound duration was 7.16 ± 5.08 months, with an average wound area of 39.18 ± 71.83 cm 2 (range 2 cm 2 to 625 cm 2 ). Patients were randomly assigned to a group distracted with VR goggles and a control group receiving standard care without VR. Pain intensity was assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at three time points, and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) before the procedure, during wound debridement, and 10 min after completion. Results Statistically significant differences were observed in pain assessment before and during wound debridement ( p < 0.05). In the VR group, higher pain scores were recorded before wound care compared to the control group. Ten minutes before wound debridement, the mean pain intensity in the VR group was 2.60 ± 1.63, higher than 2.0 ± 1.53 in the control group. During wound debridement, pain intensity was higher in the control group (4.94 ± 1.53) compared to the VR group (4.32 ± 2.17). Pain intensity 10 min after debridement was similar in both groups: control (2.24 ± 1.41) and VR (2.36 ± 1.71). These findings support the hypothesis that VR goggles reduce pain intensity. No statistically significant differences in NRS pain scores were found between patients with different wound types in either group ( p > 0.05). Variables such as wound duration and wound size influenced pain levels 10 min before wound care. No association was found between sex and pain intensity ( p > 0.005). Conclusion Increased pain during procedures involving manipulation of damaged tissues and wound debridement is a common phenomenon. This study confirmed that the use of VR goggles reduces perceived pain levels. The assessment of pain experience and intensity varies depending on the assessment tools used; therefore, a combined quantitative and qualitative evaluation is recommended to accurately determine the usefulness of innovative tools in clinical practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».