Nonpharmacologic Pain Management Among Hospitalized Inpatients: A Randomized Waitlist-Controlled Trial of Standard Virtual Reality (CGI VR) Versus Video Capture VR (360 degrees 3D/Stereoscopic Video Capture VR).

OBJECTIVES: Nonpharmacologic pain management strategies are needed because of the growing opioid epidemic. While studies have examined the efficacy of virtual reality (VR) for pain reduction, there is little research in adult inpatient settings, and no studies comparing the relative efficacy of standard animated computer-generated imagery (CGI) VR to Video Capture VR (360 degrees 3D/stereoscopic Video Capture VR). Here, we report on a randomized controlled trial of the relative efficacy of standard CGI VR versus Video Capture VR (matched for content) and also compared the overall efficacy of VR to a waitlist control group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants (N=103 hospitalized inpatients reporting pain) were randomized to 1 of 3 conditions: (1) waitlist control, (2) CGI VR, or (3) Video Capture VR. The VR and waitlist conditions were 10 minutes in length. Outcomes were assessed pretreatment, post-treatment, and after a brief follow-up. RESULTS: Consistent with hypotheses, both VR conditions reduced pain significantly more relative to the waitlist control condition (d=1.60, P<0.001) and pain reductions were largely maintained at the brief follow-up assessment. Both VR conditions reduced pain by ∼50% and led to improvements in mood, anxiety, and relaxation. Contrary to prediction, the Video Capture VR condition was not significantly more effective at reducing pain relative to the CGI VR condition (d=0.25, P=0.216). However, as expected, patients randomized to the Video Capture VR rated their experience as more positive and realistic (d=0.78, P=0.002). DISCUSSION: Video Capture VR was as effective as CGI VR for pain reduction and was rated as more realistic.

An in vitro acoustic analysis and comparison of popular stethoscopes.

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of various commercially available stethoscopes using standard acoustic engineering criteria, under recording studio conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen stethoscopes (11 acoustic, 7 electronic) were analyzed using standard acoustic analysis techniques under professional recording studio conditions. An organic phantom that accurately simulated chest cavity acoustics was developed. Test sounds were played via a microphone embedded within it and auscultated at its surface by the stethoscopes. Recordings were made through each stethoscope's binaurals and/or downloaded (electronic models). Recordings were analyzed using standard studio techniques and software, including assessing ambient noise (AMB) rejection. Frequency ranges were divided into those corresponding to various standard biological sounds (cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal). RESULTS: Loudness and AMB rejection: Overall, electronic stethoscopes, when set to a maximum volume, exhibited greater values of perceived loudness compared to acoustic stethoscopes. Significant variation was seen in AMB rejection capability. Frequency detection: Marked variation was also seen, with some stethoscopes performing better for different ranges (eg, cardiac) vs others (eg, gastrointestinal). CONCLUSION: The acoustic properties of stethoscopes varied considerably in loudness, AMB rejection, and frequency response. Stethoscope choice should take into account clinical conditions to be auscultated and the noise level of the environment.