A Randomized Controlled Trial of Virtual Reality in Awake Minor Pediatric Plastic Surgery Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality has been used to alleviate pain and anxiety in a variety of medical procedures. The authors sought to explore the effects of virtual reality in common awake minor plastic surgery procedures where children may experience discomfort. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial compared virtual reality to standard-of-care distraction among children aged 6 to 16 years undergoing awake minor plastic surgery procedures at a quaternary children's hospital. Primary outcome was change in Faces Pain Scale-Revised pain score, and secondary outcomes included change in Venham Situational Anxiety Scale score, procedure duration, administration of local anesthetic, and pain/anxiety management satisfaction. RESULTS: Mean pain and anxiety scores were similar in both groups (p = 0.60 and p = 0.18, respectively), and procedure duration was shorter with virtual reality (22 minutes versus 29 minutes; p = 0.002). Duration remained shorter in a linear regression model accounting for procedure type (p = 0.01). Similar proportions of children received additional local anesthetic after the initial dose (virtual reality, n = 6; standard of care, n = 9; p = 0.19) and median pain management satisfaction was similar (virtual reality, 9 of 10; standard of care, 9 of 10; p = 0.41). Median anxiety management satisfaction was similar (virtual reality, 9 of 10; standard of care, 9 of 10; p = 0.05). Younger children reported more "fun" than older children with virtual reality (p = 0.02). Surgeons reported interest "using virtual reality again" in 83 percent of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The use of virtual reality for awake pediatric plastic surgery reduced procedure time but not pain or anxiety compared to standard of care in children aged 6 to 16 years. Virtual reality was safe and well-liked and should be considered as an additional tool. Increased efficiency may allow more cases to be performed. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".