Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) have evolved since their introduction to medicine in the 1990s. More powerful software, the miniaturization of hardware, and greater accessibility and affordability enabled novel applications of such virtual tools in surgical practice. This scoping review aims to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the literature by including all articles between 2018 and 2021 pertaining to VR and AR and their use by plastic and craniofacial surgeons in a clinician-as-user, patient-specific manner. From the initial 1637 articles, 10 were eligible for final review. These discussed a variety of clinical applications: perforator flaps reconstruction, mastectomy reconstruction, lymphovenous anastomosis, metopic craniosynostosis, dermal filler injection, auricular reconstruction, facial vascularized composite allotransplantation, and facial artery mapping. More than half (60%) involved VR/AR use intraoperatively with the remainder (40%) examining preoperative use. The hardware used predominantly comprised HoloLens (40%) and smartphones (40%). In total, 9/10 Studies utilized an AR platform. This review found consensus that VR/AR in plastic and craniomaxillofacial surgery has been used to enhance surgeons’ knowledge of patient-specific anatomy and potentially facilitated decreased intraoperative time via preoperative planning. However, further outcome-focused research is required to better establish the usability of this technology in everyday practice.
Objective To evaluate the effect of mask wearing on facial attractiveness and projected first impressions during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods A total of eight models were evaluated by 200 live raters and 750 online raters both with and without masks while smiling maximally. Both live and online raters looked at the models for 15 s, then completed a first impressions questionnaire. Results Overall ratings for attractiveness were higher for both masked and unmasked conditions in‐person versus online. Males were perceived more favorably both in impressions and attractiveness online when masked, whereas in person they were more favorable when unmasked. Females were perceived more favorably in impressions when unmasked both online and in person, but their attractiveness rating was higher when masked both online and in person. Regardless of gender and masking state, all first impressions were more favorable in person versus online. The differences were statistically significant (all p < 0.05). Conclusions Face masks have different effects for males versus females in both an online and in‐person setting. Men are perceived more positively in‐person when they smile unmasked while they are better ranked online when they smile masked. Females are better perceived in all domains other than attractiveness when smiling unmasked both online and in person. To optimize first impressions, individuals should seek to meet in person whenever possible when forming new relationships.
Introduction Osler et al. revised the Baux score in 2010 to include inhalation injury, attempting to improve upon the original 1961 model given the significant advances in modern burn care. Other predictive models of burn mortality have similarly been developed using use an assortment of other variables, however there is no consensus on the preferred formula to use. This systematic review aims to investigate the accuracy of the revised Baux (rBaux) score in comparison to other models when determining mortality risk in patients with burn injuries. Methods A systematic review was performed by two independent reviewers using electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus) from March 1, 2010 to May 22, 2022. The majority of studies were classified as “high” quality and no studies were excluded due to risk of bias. Articles were included if they were published in English and assessed risk of mortality from burns using the rBaux model and an alternative model. The PRISMA statement was followed, and all the PROBAST quality appraisal checklist was used during data extraction. Results The search identified 79 non-duplicate citations, of which 33 underwent full-text review, and 21 met inclusion criteria. They assessed the predictive ability of the rBaux score in comparison to the original Baux score, Belgian Outcome for Burn Injury, Abbreviated Burn Severity Index, APACHE II, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Boston Group/Ryan scores, the FLAMES model, the Prognostic Burn Index, and several other equations that have not been externally validated. The accuracy of mortality prediction (area under ROC curves) for the rBaux score ranged from 0.68 to 0.99 and 14 studies found a value greater than 0.90. These ROC values were found to be lowest in the two studies with subgroupings for age, demonstrating an ROC of 0.01 in children, and 0.68 and 0.92 in the elderly. Eleven studies described sensitivity, specificity, or both, with sensitivity ranging from 12% to 96%, and specificity ranging from 80% to 100%. Conclusions The rBaux score offers a relatively easy method to rapidly assess the mortality risk from burn injury in a broad range of patient populations based on age, percent total body surface area burned, and presence/absence of an inhalation injury. This tool remains valid despite the exclusion of patient comorbidities and other injury-related factors. However, this study also identified the rBaux’s ability to predict mortality risk was limited when applied to patients at the extremes of age, highlighting an important area for future research. At present, given its relative simplicity and generalizability, the rBaux score remains a useful clinical tool for predicting mortality. Applicability of Research to Practice The rBaux score remains a simple yet powerful predictor of mortality in burn patients, which can be applied at the bedside on initial presentation across diverse patient populations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.