RESUMEN
Introduction: Patient education is an essential element of the treatment pathway. Augmented reality (AR), with disease simulations and three-dimensional visuals, offers a developing approach to patient education. We aim to determine whether this tool can increase patient understanding of their disease and post-visit satisfaction in comparison to current standard of care (SOC) educational practices in a randomized control study. Methods: Our single-site study consisted of 100 patients with initial diagnoses of kidney masses or stones randomly enrolled in the AR or SOC arm. In the AR arm, a physician used AR software on a tablet to educate the patient. SOC patients were educated through traditional discussion, imaging, and hand-drawn illustrations. Participants completed pre- and post-physician encounter surveys adapted from the Press Ganey® patient questionnaire to assess understanding and satisfaction. Their responses were evaluated in the Readability Studio® and analyzed to quantify rates of improvement in self-reported understanding and satisfaction scores. Results: There was no significant difference in participant education level (P = 0.828) or visit length (27.6 vs. 25.0 min, P = 0.065) between cohorts. Our data indicate that the rate of change in pre- to post-visit self-reported understanding was similar in each arm (P ≥ 0.106 for all responses). The AR arm, however, had significantly higher patient satisfaction scores concerning the educational effectiveness and understanding of images used during the consultation (P < 0.05). Conclusions: While AR did not significantly increase self-reported patient understanding of their disease compared to SOC, this study suggests AR as a potential avenue to increase patient satisfaction with educational tools used during consultations.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To investigate complications and treatment failure rates of percutaneous renal cryoablation (PRC) for small renal masses under local anaesthesia and conscious sedation (LACS), to assess the safety and effectiveness of this approach, as PRC is typically performed under general anaesthesia (GA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed PRC under LACS from 2003 to 2017. We analysed perioperative parameters between patients who successfully underwent PRC under LACS and patients with post-procedural complications or treatment failure (renal mass enhancement after successful intraoperative tumour ablation). Two-sided non-parametric and Fisher's exact tests were performed to compare uncomplicated or disease-free PRC with the complication or treatment failure group, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 100 PRCs under LACS were performed during the study period. Of these patients, six patients had at least one postoperative complication (6%), and treatment failure was diagnosed in nine patients (9%) after PRC [mean (SD) follow-up of 42.7 (26.6) months]. The procedural failure rate was 1%. No ablations were converted to GA. The mean tumour size was smaller in patients who had no complications during PRC compared to those who did, at a mean (SD) of 2.2 (0.6) cm vs 3.0 (1.0) cm (P = 0.039). The use of more intraoperative probes during the PRC was also associated with complications, at a mean (SD) 3.0 (1.4) vs 1.8 (0.8) (P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: PRC under LACS is an effective and safe procedural approach for managing small renal masses with low complication, treatment failure, and procedural failure rates. Larger renal masses and intraoperative use of multiple probes is associated with an increased risk of PRC complications. ABBREVIATIONS: BMI: body mass index; CCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index; GA: general anaesthesia; LACS: local anaesthesia and conscious sedation; PRC: percutaneous renal cryoablation; R.E.N.A.L.: Radius, Exophytic/Endophytic, Nearness, Anterior/Posterior, Location.
