The application of extended reality in cardiac surgery: potential implications for low- and middle-income countries

Khabir, Yumna; Khan, Mushkbar; Iqbal, Urooj

doi:10.1097/js9.0000000000000082

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there is limited XR research focusing on clinically relevant endpoints, the field that has made the most progress in terms of meaningful clinical implementation is postoperative rehabilitation, as XR platforms have demonstrated correlations with reduced postoperative pain, improved functional performance, and decreased psychological stress 61 . Extended reality technologies can also enable remote assistance for complex cases in low- and middle-income countries, 13 facilitate patient rounds, 16 convert computed tomography images to XR for surgical planning, 64 and decrease surgical setup time 65 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A significant body of literature describing the technological advancements exists in the use of XR for surgical or procedural training, including multiple systematic reviews 6–12 . These publications coincide with the decreasing costs of XR devices 13 and their increasing implementation 14–22 . Many XR studies focus on a subset of XR, a particular specialty, or reactions and knowledge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does Extended Reality Simulation Improve Surgical/Procedural Learning and Patient Outcomes When Compared With Standard Training Methods?

Woodall,

Chang,

Toy

et al. 2024

Sim Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The use of extended reality (XR) technologies, including virtual, augmented, and mixed reality, has increased within surgical and procedural training programs. Few studies have assessed experiential learning- and patient-based outcomes using XR compared with standard training methods. Methods As a working group for the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, we used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and a PICO strategy to perform a systematic review of 4238 articles to assess the effectiveness of XR technologies compared with standard training methods. Outcomes were grouped into knowledge, time-to-completion, technical proficiency, reactions, and patient outcomes. Because of study heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not feasible. Results Thirty-two studies met eligibility criteria: 18 randomized controlled trials, 7 comparative studies, and 7 systematic reviews. Outcomes of most studies included Kirkpatrick levels of evidence I–III (reactions, knowledge, and behavior), while few reported level IV outcomes (patient). The overall risk of bias was low. With few exceptions, included studies showed XR technology to be more effective than standard training methods in improving objective skills and performance, shortening procedure time, and receiving more positive learner ratings. However, XR use did not show significant differences in gained knowledge. Conclusions Surgical or procedural XR training may improve technical skill development among trainees and is generally favored over standard training methods. However, there should be an additional focus on how skill development translates to clinically relevant outcomes. We recommend longitudinal studies to examine retention and transfer of training to clinical settings, methods to improve timely, adaptive feedback for deliberate practice, and cost analyses.

show abstract