MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900548820 · doi:10.1089/end.2018.0626

Pilot Assessment of Immersive Virtual Reality Renal Models as an Educational and Preoperative Planning Tool for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

2018· article· en· W2900548820 on OpenAlexaff
Egor Parkhomenko, Mitchell O’Leary, Shoaib Safiullah, Sartaaj Walia, Michael Owyong, Cyrus Lin, Ryan James, Zhamshid Okhunov, Roshan M. Patel, Kamaljot S. Kaler, Jaime Landman, Ralph V. Clayman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous nephrolithotomyRetrospective cohort studyPercutaneousSurgeryUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) requires the urologist to have detailed knowledge of the stone and its relationship with the renal anatomy. Immersive virtual reality (iVR) provides patient-specific three-dimensional models that might be beneficial in this regard. Our objective is to present the initial experience with iVR in surgeon planning and patient preoperative education for PCNL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2017 to 2018 four surgeons, each of whom had varying expertise in PCNL, used iVR models to acquaint themselves with the renal anatomy before PCNL among 25 patients. iVR renderings were also viewed by patients using the same head-mounted Oculus rift display. Surgeons rated their understanding of the anatomy with CT alone and then after CT+iVR; patients also recorded their experience with iVR. To assess the impact on outcomes, the 25 iVR study patients were compared with 25 retrospective matched-paired non-iVR patients. Student's t-test was used to analyze collected data. RESULTS: iVR improved surgeons' understanding of the optimal calix of entry and the stone's location, size, and orientation (p < 0.01). iVR altered the surgical approach in 10 (40%) cases. Patients strongly agreed that iVR improved their understanding of their stone disease and reduced their preoperative anxiety. In the retrospective matched-paired analysis, the iVR group had a statistically significant decrease in fluoroscopy time and blood loss as well as a trend toward fewer nephrostomy tracts and a higher stone-free rate. CONCLUSIONS: iVR improved urologists' understanding of the renal anatomy and altered the operative approach in 40% of cases. In addition, iVR improved patient comprehension of their surgery. Clinically, iVR had benefits with regard to decreased fluoroscopy time and less blood loss along with a trend toward fewer access tracts and higher stone-free rates.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207