MP15-08 THE USE OF A VIRTUAL REALITY DEVICE (HYPNOVR®) DURING OUTPATIENT DJ STENT REMOVAL PROCEDURES: INITIAL RESULTS FROM A FEASIBILITY STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy III (MP15)1 Apr 2020MP15-08 THE USE OF A VIRTUAL REALITY DEVICE (HYPNOVR®) DURING OUTPATIENT DJ STENT REMOVAL PROCEDURES: INITIAL RESULTS FROM A FEASIBILITY STUDY Eugenio Ventimiglia*, Steeve Doizi, Luca Villa, Francesco Montorsi, and Olivier Traxer Eugenio Ventimiglia*Eugenio Ventimiglia* More articles by this author , Steeve DoiziSteeve Doizi More articles by this author , Luca VillaLuca Villa More articles by this author , Francesco MontorsiFrancesco Montorsi More articles by this author , and Olivier TraxerOlivier Traxer More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000840.08AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Cystoscopic DJ removal is an outpatient procedure generally not requiring anesthesia or sedation. However, patients may experience pain during the procedure, as well as treatment-related anxiety. For these reasons, we aimed to test a virtual reality device (VRD, HypnoVR®, Strasbourg, France) during DJ removal procedure in order to assess its impact in terms of patient-reported pain and anxiety. METHODS: We enrolled 10 patients with indwelling DJ stent scheduled for stent removal. Patients with either epilepsy or migraine where excluded from the study. DJ removal procedures were performed using a single use flexible cystoscope specifically designed for DJ removal (Isiris®; Coloplast, France). The VRD device was installed and started 10 to 5 minutes before the procedure. Tolerability of pain and treatment-related anxiety represented the primary efficacy outcomes and were evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS), the short version of the McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), and the short version of the Surgical Fear Questionnaire (SFQ). Secondary outcomes were represented by VRD ease of use (VAS) and patient satisfaction with the use of the device. RESULTS: Median (IQR) age and BMI were respectively 49 (48-53) years and 26 (24-28) kg/m2. All patients had indwelling DJ stent following ureteroscopy. Most of the patients were DJ naïve (7, 70%). Median extra time for the installation was 3 (2-4) minutes. Median pre-procedure pain (VAS) score and anxiety (VAS) scores were 1 (1-1) and 2 (1-3). Lower post-procedure anxiety levels were recorded, median (IQR) VAS 1 (1-2), although not statistically significant, p>0.05. Procedure related median (IQR) pain was 4 (2-5). Similar results were reported for the MPQ and the SFQ. No procedure was stopped due to side effects from. All the patients who were not DJ naïve reported a better experience using the VRD compared to the recalled previous sessions. All the 10 patients would use again the VRD if further DJ removal session were needed in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Our proof of principle study shows that VRD application during DJ removal is safe and feasible. The initial report from patients are positive both in terms of pain and anxiety tolerance. Further comparative studies are needed. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e207-e207 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Eugenio Ventimiglia* More articles by this author Steeve Doizi More articles by this author Luca Villa More articles by this author Francesco Montorsi More articles by this author Olivier Traxer More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".