RESUMO
Pain following laparoscopic surgery remains a neglected healthcare issue. Virtual reality-mediated therapy's (VRT) analgesic potential could address this. However, its effect in this setting remains unexplored. We aimed to establish the feasibility and safety of VRT as an adjunct analgesic following gynaecological laparoscopy and explore differences between active distraction and passive meditation content. 35 women were enrolled into an open crossover pilot and randomised to either intervention group 1 (active then passive content) or intervention group 2 (passive then active content) following surgery. VRT was administered in two 10-min segments with a 10-min washout period in between. Pain scores, opioid requirements and side effects were recorded before and after each segment whilst questionnaires evaluated acceptability. We observed a significant reduction in pain over time for the entire study population (F = 8.63, p < 0.0005) but no differences between intervention groups, in contrast to many studies demonstrating an increase in pain during this time. During segment one, intervention group 1 (n = 18) were administered significantly less opioid than intervention group 2 (n = 17) [0.0 (0.0-7.5) vs. 3.0(0.0-10.0), p = 0.04]. Intervention group 1 rated the VRT experience significantly higher than intervention group 2 (7.97 vs. 6.62. p = 0.017). 97.1% (n = 34) would recommend VRT to a friend and use it as the standard-of-care in future procedures. These results demonstrate that post-operative VRT is feasible and safe. However, adequately powered studies are needed to appropriately determine its efficacy.
Assuntos
Laparoscopia , Realidade Virtual , Analgésicos , Analgésicos Opioides , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Humanos , Laparoscopia/efeitos adversos , Dor Pós-Operatória/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Pós-Operatória/etiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has created an extraordinary global health crisis. However, with limited understanding of the effects of COVID-19 during pregnancy, clinicians and patients are forced to make uninformed decisions. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the literature and report the maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with COVID-19. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched from November 1st, 2019 and March 28th, 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Primary studies, reported in English, investigating COVID-19-positive pregnant women and reporting their pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data in relation to clinical presentation, investigation were maternal and neonatal outcomes were extracted and analysed using summary statistics. Hypothesis testing was performed to examine differences in time-to-delivery. Study quality was assessed using the ICROMS tool. MAIN RESULTS: Of 73 identified articles, nine were eligible for inclusion (n = 92). 67.4% (62/92) of women were symptomatic at presentation. RT-PCR was inferior to CT-based diagnosis in 31.7% (26/79) of cases. Maternal mortality rate was 0% and only one patient required intensive care and ventilation. 63.8% (30/47) had preterm births, 61.1% (11/18) fetal distress and 80% (40/50) a Caesarean section. 76.92% (11/13) of neonates required NICU admission and 42.8% (40/50) had a low birth weight. There was one indeterminate case of potential vertical transmission. Mean time-to-delivery was 4.3±3.08 days (n = 12) with no difference in outcomes (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-positive pregnant women present with fewer symptoms than the general population and may be RT-PCR negative despite having signs of viral pneumonia. The incidence of preterm births, low birth weight, C-section, NICU admission appear higher than the general population.