Immersive Virtual Reality for Patient-Specific Preoperative Planning: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Immersive virtual reality (iVR) facilitates surgical decision-making by enabling surgeons to interact with complex anatomic structures in realistic 3-dimensional environments. With emerging interest in its applications, its effects on patients and providers should be clarified. This systematic review examines the current literature on iVR for patient-specific preoperative planning. Materials and Methods. A literature search was performed on five databases for publications from January 1, 2000 through March 21, 2021. Primary studies on the use of iVR simulators by surgeons at any level of training for patient-specific preoperative planning were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). Results were qualitatively synthesized, and descriptive statistics were calculated. Results. The systematic search yielded 2,555 studies in total, with 24 full-texts subsequently included for qualitative synthesis, representing 264 medical personnel and 460 patients. Neurosurgery was the most frequently represented discipline (10/24; 42%). Preoperative iVR did not significantly improve patient-specific outcomes of operative time, blood loss, complications, and length of stay, but may decrease fluoroscopy time. In contrast, iVR improved surgeon-specific outcomes of surgical strategy, anatomy visualization, and confidence. Validity, reliability, and feasibility of patient-specific iVR models were assessed . The mean QATSDD score of included studies was 32.9%. Conclusions. Immersive VR improves surgeon experiences of preoperative planning, with minimal evidence for impact on short-term patient outcomes. Future work should focus on high-quality studies investigating long-term patient outcomes, and utility of preoperative iVR for trainees.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it