Search

Background: Surgery is often a complex process that requires detailed 3-dimensional anatomical knowledge and rigorous interplay between team members to attain ideal operational efficiency or "flow." Virtual Reality (VR) represents a technology by which to rehearse complex plans and communicate precise steps to a surgical team prior to entering the operating room. The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of VR for preoperative surgical team planning and interdisciplinary communication across all surgical specialties., Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed examining existing research on VR use for preoperative surgical team planning and interdisciplinary communication across all surgical fields in order to optimize surgical efficiency. MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL databases were searched from inception to July 31, 2022 using standardized search clauses. A qualitative data synthesis was performed with particular attention to preoperative planning, surgical efficiency optimization, and interdisciplinary collaboration/communication techniques determined a priori. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed. All included studies were appraised for their quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) tool., Results: One thousand and ninety-three non-duplicated articles with abstract and full text availability were identified. Thirteen articles that examined preoperative VR-based planning techniques for optimization of surgical efficiency and/or interdisciplinary communication fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria. These studies had a low-to-medium methodological quality with a MERSQI mean score of 10.04 out of 18 (standard deviation 3.61)., Conclusions: This review demonstrates that time spent rehearsing and visualizing patient-specific anatomical relationships in VR may improve operative efficiency and communication across multiple surgical specialties., (© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Société Internationale de Chirurgie.)

Purpose: We evaluate a single-institution cohort of mothers contemporaneous with the Management of Myelomeningocele Study (MOMS) trial to determine the generalizability of MOMS results and compare shunt rates., Methods: A retrospective chart review identified patients with myelomeningocele born between 2003 and 2009. We applied MOMS eligibility criteria and compared sociodemographic variables between patients at our institution who would have been eligible or ineligible and MOMS participants. Finally, we applied the original MOMS primary outcome and the revised primary outcome to our cohort., Results: Of the 78 patients, 55 (70.5%) were eligible for the MOMS trial. Mean maternal age, race, and marital status were different from both MOMS groups. Comparing our series to MOMS postnatal shows fewer female infants (44.9 vs. 63.8%, p = 0.017) and more thoracic lesions (12.8 vs. 3.8%, p = 0.038). Shunt rates in our cohort (84.6%) were higher than MOMS prenatal and similar to MOMS postnatal (44.0 and 83.7%, respectively). Fewer children met the original primary outcome than the postnatal group (84.6 vs. 97.8%, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference between our cohort and the prenatal group (84.6 vs. 72.5%, p = 0.058). When applying the revised criteria, we find the opposite: a significant difference between local and MOMS prenatal (84.6 vs. 49.5%, p < 0.001) but no difference between the local group and MOMS postnatal (84.6 vs. 87.0%, p = 0.662)., Conclusions: Mothers in our cohort differ from mothers enrolled in MOMS via several sociodemographic factors. Baseline fetal characteristics show a significantly higher functional lesion level in between our cohort and MOMS. Treatment of hydrocephalus in our series tracks almost identically with original MOMS shunt criteria. Revision of the criteria led to greater concordance between meeting criteria and receiving a shunt in MOMS patients, but changes the results in our series.