Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized trial evaluates VRG's impact on pain and anxiety in a urodynamics population, suggesting comfort enhancement.
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality glasses (VRG) intervention during urodynamic testing (UT) on procedural pain (PP), anxiety levels, and hemodynamic parameters.Methods: This prospective, randomized controlled trial enrolled 84 patients undergoing UT, randomized 1:1 to VRG (n=42) or control group (n=42). The VRG group viewed immersive 3-dimensional nature videos via VRG throughout the procedure, while controls received routine care. Primary outcomes included PP (visual analogue scale) and anxiety levels (State Anxiety Inventory) assessed at baseline (pre-UT1), immediately postprocedure (post-UT2), and 15 minutes postprocedure (post-UT3). Secondary outcomes comprised hemodynamic parameters (systolic blood pressure [SBP], diastolic blood pressure [DBP], heart rate [HR], respiratory rate [RR], oxygen saturation [SpO₂]) measured at identical timepoints.Results: Groups demonstrated comparable baseline characteristics and PP scores (VRG: 2.52±2.76 vs. control: 3.07±2.99, P=0.386). While baseline anxiety levels were similar between groups, the VRG group exhibited significantly lower postprocedural anxiety scores (post-UT2: 34.64±4.98 vs. 39.21±8.11, P=0.003; post-UT3: 34.45±4.68 vs. 39.45±8.27, P=0.001). Hemodynamically, the VRG group demonstrated significantly reduced DBP at post-UT3 (73.4±9.7 mmHg vs. 78.7±12.0 mmHg, P=0.028) and lower RRs at both postprocedural timepoints (P<0.001 and P=0.015, respectively). No significant between-group differences were observed for SBP, HR, or SpO₂.Conclusions: VRG intervention during UT effectively reduced postprocedural anxiety and demonstrated beneficial effects on RR and DBP, without significantly impacting PP. These findings support the use of VRG by nurses as a safe, nonpharmacological adjunct for enhancing patient comfort during invasive urological procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dölek et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: