Skip to content

Virtual Reality Therapy and Patient Controlled Sedation in Joint Replacement Surgery

Effects of Immersive Virtual Reality Therapy on Intravenous Patient Controlled Sedation During Orthopedic Surgery Under Regional Anesthesia

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ANZCTR
Registry ID
ACTRN12618001296224
Enrollment
50
Registered
2018-08-01
Start date
2016-02-10
Completion date
2016-05-10
Last updated
2018-08-20

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Brief summary

This study assessed the effect of providing Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) Therapy on the self-administered sedation requirements, via a propofol patient controlled sedation pump, of patients undergoing joint replacement surgery under regional anesthesia in at St Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne, Australia. It was hypothesized that patients receiving IVR would self administer less sedation during joint replacement surgery compared to individuals not receiving IVR.

Interventions

Providing patients with a set of virtual reality goggles, either Samsung Gear VR, or Oculus Rift DK2 goggles playing simulations of floating down scenic outdoor vistas. On the Gear VR this was EdenRiver 1.0 by Unello Design, and on the Oculus Rift DK2 this was Iceland by VergeVR. Intervention lasted to the end of the procedure, or to when the patient self-removed the IVR therapy. This occurred in the operating theatres at St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne. The principal investigator, Mark Hua

Providing patients with a set of virtual reality goggles, either Samsung Gear VR, or Oculus Rift DK2 goggles playing simulations of floating down scenic outdoor vistas. On the Gear VR this was EdenRiver 1.0 by Unello Design, and on the Oculus Rift DK2 this was Iceland by VergeVR. Intervention lasted to the end of the procedure, or to when the patient self-removed the IVR therapy. This occurred in the operating theatres at St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne. The principal investigator, Mark Huang, administered the treatment, in conjunction of the list anaesthetist. Adherence was monitored by watching the patient for any discomfort, and any attempts at removal were documented. Sedation administered was the same in the intervention/control arm: Regional anaesthesia for all patients was performed by the Anaesthesiologist. Between 2.8 and 3.4 ml of 0.5% Bupivacaine was injected into the L4-L5 subarachnoid space. For knee replacements, a popliteal nerve block was administered using 20ml of 0.2% ropivicaine and a femoral nerve catheters were inserted, with the patient receiving 20ml of 0.375% ropivicaine. Each patient was given a patient controlled sedation (PCS) button, with each press of the PCS supplying a propofol bolus of 400mcg/kg Ideal Body Weight with a 5 minute lockout period. The anaesthetist was also permitted to give adjuvant fentanyl or midazolam as he/she felt fit.

Sponsors

St Vincents Hospital Research Endowment Fund
Lead SponsorHospital

Study design

Allocation
Randomised controlled trial
Intervention model
Parallel
Primary purpose
Treatment
Masking
Open (masking not used)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

All patients undergoing elective knee or hip joint replacement surgery under regional anesthesia. English-speaking patients 18 years of age with and over no significant cardiovascular or respiratory disease.

Exclusion criteria

Patients receiving general anesthesia, cognitive impairment preventing the use of subjective outcome surveys, visual or hearing impairment and non-English speaking patients.

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ANZCTR · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026