Extended reality in anesthesia: a narrative review

Extended reality in anesthesia

Article information

Korean J Anesthesiol. 2025;78(2):105-117

Publication date (electronic) : 2025 January 15

doi : https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.24687

Sung Hee Han^,¹^,²

, Kristen L Kiroff ²

, Sakura Kinjo ²

¹Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea

²Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

Corresponding author: Sung Hee Han, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 82 Gumi-ro 173beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam 13620, Korea Tel: +1-415-283-8679 Tel: +82-31-787-7114 Fax: +82-31-787-4063 Email: anesthesia@snubh.org

Received 2024 October 4; Revised 2025 January 14; Accepted 2025 January 14.

Abstract

The application of extended reality (XR) technology is rapidly expanding in the medical field, including anesthesia. This review aims to introduce the current literature on XR utilization to help anesthesiologists adopt this technology in education and clinical practice. XR is useful for both knowledge acquisition and skill training in a wide range of settings, from students to medical professionals. One of its major benefits is harm reduction through simulation scenarios that allow for immersion in clinical situations and opportunities to practice procedures and tasks. These scenarios often involve both technical and non-technical skills, enabling clinicians to enhance their capabilities without risking patient safety. In clinical settings, XR can also be used with patients to increase familiarity with medical procedures, provide education, and reduce anxiety. XR can also serve as a distraction technique, diverting the patient’s attention from medical procedures and enhancing comfort, which may contribute to reduced opioid use. Although the potential benefits of XR in anesthesia have been reported in various educational and clinical contexts, challenges, such as limited financial reimbursement and restricted technical accessibility, remain. With further research and technological advancements, XR technology has the potential for widespread adoption in anesthesia practice.

Keywords: Anesthesia; Education; Patients; Patient safety; Simulation training; Virtual reality

Introduction

The application of extended reality (XR) technology has rapidly increased over the past two decades, presenting new opportunities for clinical practice and education in medicine [1]. XR is an umbrella term that encompasses virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) technologies [1,2]. VR is defined as “a simulated experience that employs a 3D near-eye display to give the user an immersive feel of a virtual world,” often utilizing head-mounted displays (HMDs) [3,4]. In contrast to VR, which completely replaces the user’s environment with the virtual one, AR and MR blend real-world experiences with virtual elements [1,4,5]. AR overlays digital images onto the real world without interactivity, while MR allows users to physically manipulate digital content in a blended environment [1,4,5]. Fig. 1 illustrates the structural differences among these technologies. The purpose of this narrative review was to introduce the current literature on XR technology utilization to help increase its adoption in education and clinical practice in anesthesiology.

Fig. 1.

Extended reality (XR) technologies. Virtual reality (VR): Immerses users in a completely virtual environment, isolated from the real world. Augmented reality (AR): Overlays virtual objects and information onto the real world. Mixed reality (MR): Blends real and virtual worlds, enabling users to interact with both physical and digital elements simultaneously. XR: An umbrella term that refers to all VR, AR, and MR technologies.

Application of XR in medical education

As simulation becomes a key aspect of medical education [6], XR technology has been gaining attention. The essential characteristics of VR, namely immersion and presence, offer learners a heightened level of engagement [3]. Compared to traditional educational methods, XR enhances learners’ motivation and improves all three domains of learning: cognitive (knowledge), psychomotor (skills), and affective (attitude) [7,8]. XR technology has mainly been used in medical education for teaching both technical skills for specific medical procedures and non-technical skills such as communication.

Technical skill education for medical procedures

Airway management

The role of simulation training in airway management education has been well-documented. Although high-fidelity 2D bronchoscopy simulators have been well-developed and studied, immersive VR simulators for other airway management skills are limited [9]. One study that employed VR simulations for Mallampati scoring and surgical cricothyroidotomy reported improvements in trainee performance and knowledge [10]. Another study utilized narrative VR to train airway device placement skills [11]. However, these studies lacked control groups, making it difficult to assess the full effectiveness of VR [10,11].

AR has shown promise in direct laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. In one study, AR glasses projecting text-based instructions during endotracheal intubation improved adherence to standard protocols compared with the control group [12]. Another study incorporated advanced AR technology in neonatal endotracheal intubation training. In that study, a microcamera at the tip of the laryngoscope blade captured a video of the patient’s airway, which was then projected onto the AR glasses. This significantly increased success rates, from 32% in the conventional group to 71% in the AR group [13].

Regional anesthesia and pain procedures

Considering the numerous advantages of interactive XR technology in anatomical education, XR simulators are promising for radiology-guided regional anesthesia training [8]. Proficiency in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia requires both cognitive (sonoanatomical knowledge) and technical (transducer scanning) skills [14]. A recently developed immersive VR simulator consisting of an HMD and two motion controllers allows for simultaneously training both ultrasound image optimization and needling skills [15]. This simulator also tracks hand movements, making it a promising tool for educational feedback in regional anesthesia training. Because this simulator can replicate any sonoanatomy, it has high potential for advancing ultrasound-guided anesthesia training in the future. One group of researchers introduced a VR simulator for C-arm-guided pain procedures [16]. This interactive VR simulator reduced the procedure time, minimized C-arm usage, and increased satisfaction compared with the control group. However, its broader applicability requires further validation due to the small sample size.

XR simulators for blind-technique regional anesthesia (e.g., spinal anesthesia) have also been explored. One study reported high satisfaction with a non-interactive VR spinal anesthesia training module. The participants watched a step-by-step VR video of the spinal anesthesia process using an HMD (Fig. 2) [17]. Participants reported high satisfaction and perceived significant educational benefits. Although the sample size was large (n = 168), this study lacked a control group and did not assess the impact on procedural performance. Additional research is therefore necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of non-interactive VR simulators in regional anesthesia education.

Fig. 2.

Non-interactive virtual reality spinal anesthesia simulator. The simulator consists of an HMD. The user is immersed in a virtual operating room via the HMD and observes the step-by-step procedure, fully detached from the real world. HMD: head-mounted display.

An interactive VR spinal anesthesia simulator consisting of an HMD and two handheld motion controllers was tested by anesthesiology residents without prior experience (Fig. 3). During the first week of training, the VR group used a VR simulator, whereas the control group relied on conventional clinical observation. For the remaining three weeks, both groups continued training in the same manner. Upon completion of the four-week training, the VR group achieved higher knowledge and skill scores in spinal anesthesia performed on patients [18]. This finding is consistent with previous research showing that VR education enables long-term retention of learning experiences [7,8].

Fig. 3.

Interactive virtual reality spinal anesthesia simulator. The simulator consists of an HMD and handheld motion controllers. The user is immersed in a virtual operating room via the HMD and practices the procedure using the motion controllers. HMD: head-mounted display.

Another interactive VR simulator with haptic feedback was developed to train combined spinal-epidural anesthesia [19]. This simulator consisted of an HMD and a pencil-type haptic feedback device (Fig. 4). The virtual environment was a 3D operating room with a patient positioned for spinal anesthesia. When the needle tip (represented by the haptic feedback device) touched the skin of the virtual patient at the puncture site, a 3D model of the internal anatomy appeared. As the needle advanced into the virtual patient’s back, the system provided feedback for seven distinct sensory events, including ligamentum flavum resistance and the force required to penetrate the subcutaneous tissue. After ten simulation sessions, the puncture time stabilized at 2.4 min. The trainees reported high satisfaction and recognized the simulator as an excellent clinical substitute [19]. Considering the importance of tactile feedback in medical simulation training, particularly in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, incorporating haptic feedback could represent a significant advancement in regional anesthesia education.

Fig. 4.

Interactive virtual reality with haptic feedback spinal-epidural anesthesia simulator. The simulator consists of an HMD and a pencil-type haptic feedback device. The user is immersed in a virtual operating room via the HMD and practices the procedure using the virtual needle. As the needle progresses through various tissue layers, the user feels haptic feedback corresponding to layers such as the skin, subcutaneous tissue, and ligamentum flavum. HMD: head-mounted display.

Additionally, an MR simulator for spinal anesthesia training consisting of MR glasses and a manikin has been developed (Fig. 5). With this simulator, a 3D internal image is projected onto the manikin via the MR glasses upon palpation of the puncture site to help the trainee understand the internal anatomy [20]. This MR simulator improved trainees’ performance skills, satisfaction, and confidence after training. However, due to the absence of a control group, this study could not demonstrate the superiority of MR training over traditional methods.

Fig. 5.

Mixed reality (MR) spinal anesthesia simulator. The simulator consists of MR glasses and a manikin. When the user locates the puncture site on the manikin, a virtual 3D image of the internal anatomy is overlaid onto the manikin through the MR glasses.

Vascular access

Simulation training is a crucial component of vascular assessment education. However, VR simulators designed for this purpose are still in the early stages of development. One study on a VR simulator for central vein catheterization training found that trainees using a system with an HMD and handheld controllers reported higher satisfaction than those using a manikin simulator, particularly in terms of spatial awareness and adherence to standard protocols [21]. However, 41% of the participants preferred manikins because of their superior tactile feedback. Inadequate haptic feedback remains a major limitation of current VR simulators. Although recent advances in haptic technology have shown promise, existing sensors do not replicate human tactile perception [22,23]. In this context, incorporating AR or MR technology through combining virtual elements with physical models may be a promising approach for needling skills training. For example, for one immersive MR simulator for peripheral intravenous catheterization, MR glasses are used to project internal anatomical features onto a manikin. This system was found to improve students’ confidence, satisfaction, and clinical success rates [24].

Non-technical skill education

In clinical practice, physicians require non-technical as well as technical skills and medical knowledge. XR simulation training has been widely adopted to teach healthcare professionals non-technical skills [25]. XR training is particularly promising for high-stakes and low-frequency scenarios such as anesthesia crises. This technology enables repetitive training in scenarios that are too risky, costly, or difficult to replicate through traditional methods [25], allowing for safe and effective practice without risk to patients.

Crisis management

Although airway crises are rare, the consequences can be serious; therefore, anesthesiologists must be well-prepared. One study tested scenario-based VR simulators for pediatric airway emergencies, including anaphylaxis and foreign body aspiration, among various levels of medical professionals [26]. The VR simulator provided effective cognitive learning and significant improvements in knowledge. This study also reported an enhancement of affective learning. Learners reported experiencing a degree of anxiety similar to that of a real-life event and stated that the VR simulator promoted active participation [26]. A VR decision-making game simulating an obstetric airway crisis has also been tested among anesthesiology residents. In the game scenario, the virtual patient’s vital signs changed based on decisions made at the critical junctures of managing a difficult airway in obstetrics. The VR game resulted in improved competency for the participants and improved decision-making [27].

Operating room fires are rare and considered a “never event” for most anesthesiologists and other medical staff in the operating room. However, if such an incident occurs, it must be managed according to a precise sequence of steps within the shortest possible time [28]. Education conducted on various medical professionals (including anesthesiologists) using the VR operating room fire simulator has shown dramatic improvements in trainees’ performance. In this study, 70% of the VR group performed the correct sequence of steps compared to only 20% of the control group [28]. Another study on VR training for an operating room fire demonstrated that trainees who received VR simulation training retained their skills and knowledge for a longer period [29]. Even after an 8-month washout period, the VR group exhibited superior fire management skills compared with the standard training group, which is consistent with previous reports on the long-term educational effects of VR [7,8].

Communication skills

Given that inadequate communication increases the chance of medical errors, effective anesthetic practice in terms of patient comfort and safety depends on appropriate communication skill training [30]. Patient-embodied VR, which refers to VR created from the patient’s perspective, is effective in training healthcare professionals to understand the patient’s point of view [31]. One patient-embodied VR experience was found to effectively enhance anesthesiology residents’ therapeutic communication skills, including their ability to interpret verbal and nonverbal cues [32]. Communication between surgeons and anesthesiologists in the operating room is often inadequate or inappropriate, highlighting the need for improvement [33]. A multiuser immersive VR simulator incorporating two scenarios involving medical complications was tested by anesthesiologists and surgeons. Participants reported positive feedback, noting improved communication and a better understanding of their roles within the interprofessional team [34].

Application of XR in patient care

XR content that targets patients as the users is designed to either provide distraction or information. Traditional distractive techniques such as music, movies, or clowning are limited in that they cannot fully occupy a patient’s attention, leading patients to become “distracted” during distraction therapy [35]. The immersive nature of VR, which makes users feel as though they are present in a different environment, aligns with the essence of distraction therapy as it diverts the patient’s mind from the medical procedure to the virtual world. VR distraction therapy has been successfully applied during various medical procedures [36].

Providing information is essential for reducing patient anxiety, and educating patients about the medical process increases their knowledge and positively influences their behavior and attitudes [37]. The immersive nature of VR effectively provides patients with a realistic experience, allowing them to become familiar with upcoming events, a process known as “habituation,” which enhances their ability to manage the stress associated with future events [38].

Distraction and patient education in vascular procedures

Distraction therapy is widely used during vascular procedures, particularly in pediatric patients [35,39]. The effect of VR distraction therapy during venipuncture has been extensively studied, showing that it effectively reduces patients’ pain and anxiety compared to usual care or other traditional distraction methods [40–44]. Notably, VR distraction is effective in patients with multiple previous experiences, such as those in onco-hematologic settings [43]. Despite multiple positive reports in pediatric populations, the optimal age range for VR distraction therapy during vascular procedures remains uncertain. Most studies have excluded children aged < 4 years, and only a few studies have included adolescents up to the age of 16 or 17 years [41,43,44]. Consequently, the effect of VR distraction on specific age groups such as toddlers and older children remains unexplored. Further research is required to refine or expand the age range for VR distraction therapy for vascular procedures.

Along with distraction therapy, preprocedural information is also crucial for children undergoing venipuncture [39]. Although VR distraction is well-documented, only a few studies have reported the effects of patient education VR for venipuncture. One study utilizing patient education VR with cartoon characters demonstrated an effective reduction in pain and anxiety in children, along with higher satisfaction among parents. In addition, phlebotomists reported higher levels of satisfaction and lower levels of procedural difficulty when performing venipuncture in the VR group [45]. Another trial that used VR for both information and distraction purposes simultaneously in children showed lower levels of pain and anxiety. Higher phlebotomist satisfaction and a shorter time spent on venipuncture were also reported in the VR group [46]. Notably, patient education VR significantly improves the workload of healthcare professionals by reducing procedural difficulty and shortening the time required for the procedure [45,46]. This may indicate the value of pre-procedural VR education over VR distraction in children.

Considering that the favorable effects of VR therapy in pediatric venipuncture have been consistently reported and inhalation induction is associated with significant risks for both patients and healthcare professionals, anesthesiologists may consider transitioning to a new era of preoperative VR-assisted venous access as a replacement for inhalation induction in pediatric patients [47–49].

Burn wound care

Burn wound care often requires anesthetic support due to the extreme intensity of pain, which can also lead to significant mental trauma for patients. A recent survey conducted among American Burn Association Centers showed that 37% of centers adopted VR therapy in clinical practice [50]. The use of VR during burn-dressing changes has been reported to effectively reduce pain and decrease the required opioid dose in both pediatric and adult patients [51–53]. VR therapy reduces pain as well as fear and anxiety in children undergoing burn dressings [54]. A meta-analysis revealed that unlike immersive VR, 2D video does not significantly affect pain intensity [53]. Many burn-dressing trials have employed a VR game called SnowWorld, which is specifically designed to help burn patients by featuring ice-cold environments and objects such as snowmen [52,53]. The successful effects of this VR game suggest a need for tailored VR content design, even in non-informative VR, where the sole intention is distraction.

Preoperative patient education

Preoperative anxiety is common, and preoperative education is known to mitigate anxiety [37]. The positive effects of patient education using XR on preoperative anxiety have been reported in multiple trials with only a few exception [55–60]. In contrast to the other VR studies, Eijlers et al. [61] reported no reduction in anxiety in pediatric patients receiving preoperative VR education [57,58]. The duration and content of the VR intervention may have contributed to these differing results. The session lasted 15 min and featured realistic medical professionals, while other studies used shorter sessions lasting 3–4 min with animated characters tailored for children [57,58,61].

Although most trials have consistently reported the positive effects of preoperative XR education on anxiety, notable differences exist between age groups. In these studies, older adults tended to have lower participation rates. For instance, a colorectal cancer surgical study found that 62% of screened patients refused to participate, and another adult trial reported a 32% refusal rate [55,60]. This contrasts with the 3%–4% refusal rates observed in pediatric trials [57,58]. This discrepancy may be because older adults are more reluctant than younger individuals to adopt new technologies [62]. These age-related differences in XR acceptance are important for clinicians when considering the use of XR technology in adults.

Patient education using AR has also recently been introduced into clinical practice. AR technology blends real and virtual worlds. During AR education, patients can see and interact with their real hospital environment while virtual objects are overlaid onto the real world through AR glasses. In contrast, VR education immerses patients in a virtual world via an HMD, disconnecting them from the actual hospital environment [63]. AR-based patient education effectively reduces preoperative anxiety compared to standard procedures [60,64]. In addition, participants in AR education trials have assessed AR programs as enjoyable and expressed a desire to repeat the experience [60,64].

As only one trial has investigated the optimal timing for preoperative patient education, our understanding remains incomplete. Education immediately before surgery is more effective in children [65]. In contrast, for adults, earlier education may be more beneficial, as previous trials have provided education days or weeks prior to surgery, and parents reported a preference for earlier education for their children [55,56,65]. Further research is needed to clarify these findings.

Induction of general anesthesia

Distraction therapy is an important method for alleviating anxiety during general anesthesia induction in pediatric patients, for which toys, clowns, and games using smartphones or tablet PCs have been used [66]. Playing interactive VR games with an HMD upon arrival in the operating room has been reported to reduce children’s anxiety during the immediate pre-induction period and the induction process of general anesthesia [67]. Notably, the children in the VR group exhibited lower anxiety levels even when they were not playing the VR game or wearing the HMD. The participants experienced reduced anxiety after a brief practice session in the waiting area before playing the VR game in the operating room. Another study that implemented VR video distraction therapy during transfer to the operating room reported a significant reduction in children’s fear and anxiety [68]. Playing an interactive game using AR glasses during the induction of general anesthesia has shown similar results. Children who experienced the AR game reported high engagement and satisfaction scores. In addition, caregivers rated the effectiveness of AR in reducing their children’s anxiety as high [69].

Distraction during regional anesthesia

The application of XR distraction therapy during the maintenance period of regional anesthesia or monitored anesthesia care has effectively reduced patient anxiety and/or increased patient satisfaction.

Two studies conducted on patients undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia, in which sedative use was relatively restricted, showed lower anxiety levels in the VR group [70,71]. Patient satisfaction was higher in the VR group than in the control group in one study, whereas satisfaction levels were the same in another [70,71]. Among patients receiving peripheral regional anesthesia, the VR group exhibited significantly lower anxiety levels and fewer hemodynamic changes during surgery than the control group. Patient satisfaction was higher in the VR group immediately after surgery and remained elevated two months later [72]. In this study, preoperative midazolam was administered to all patients according to the center’s routine protocol, which prevented accurately evaluating the potential of XR technology to reduce medication dosages.

Recent trials have also compared pharmacological sedation with XR distraction therapy. In a study of patients who received spinal anesthesia, the VR group achieved equivalent anxiety reduction without supplemental intravenous sedatives and reported higher satisfaction [73]. Another trial involving patients undergoing a brachial plexus block found that the VR group required significantly less midazolam and experienced higher patient satisfaction [74]. Another trial compared the effects of pharmacological premedication to those of intraoperative VR therapy [75]. The VR group showed lower anxiety scores during the operation and PACU stay and higher patient satisfaction than the control group, which received midazolam as a premedication [75]. These findings suggest that XR therapy is a viable replacement for pharmacological sedation in patients undergoing surgery with regional anesthesia.

Postoperative pain control

Postoperative pain is a highly prevalent clinical concern. Commonly used drugs for postoperative pain control, such as opioids, often have side effects including nausea, vomiting, and respiratory depression. Previous studies showing the positive effects of XR on painful medical procedures suggest its potential to aid in postoperative pain management [53,76]. However, the effects of XR on acute postoperative pain control remain controversial.

One study investigating the impact of a VR intervention on acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing head and neck surgery found that the VR group had lower pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores and reduced opioid consumption than the control group, which received a smartphone intervention [77]. Another trial investigating the effect of preoperative VR intervention on postoperative pain in patients undergoing gynecological surgery found that the VR intervention was negatively correlated with postoperative VAS scores over the first 24 h and resulted in better sleep quality and a lower incidence of nausea [78]. In contrast, a recent study involving patients undergoing hip arthroplasty showed no effect of VR therapy on postoperative opioid consumption or pain scores compared with the control group. In that study, the VR group used a 3D immersive VR relaxation and distraction program with a mindfulness game, whereas the control group received a sham VR treatment involving a short nature film [79].

Although the results of current studies are inconsistent, the fact that many neurophysiologic studies support XR use in the attenuation of pain, known as “VR analgesia,” suggests that understanding the effect of VR on postoperative pain warrants further investigation [80,81].

Chronic pain management

Chronic pain is clinically challenging and requires a multidisciplinary treatment approach. Integrating XR as a complement to conventional therapies can potentially improve overall pain management outcomes.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a double-blind randomized trial was conducted involving 179 adults with self-reported chronic low back pain. The trial compared an immersive VR program in pain relief skills with a sham VR program. The pain-relief skills VR, which consisted of a skill-based self-management program, demonstrated a higher incidence of meaningful reductions in pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress [82]. The same group reported that these favorable results were maintained throughout the 24-month follow-up period [83]. However, as the possible mechanism underlying this long-lasting effect was not addressed in the study, the results should be interpreted with caution. Several trials have investigated the effect of rehabilitation exercise VR on chronic musculoskeletal pain. While a reduction in pain intensity following VR therapy has been frequently reported, its effect on range of motion or disability levels remains inconclusive [84].

Multiple pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic modalities have been used to treat neuropathic pain; however, due to the complexity of the pathophysiology, evidence supporting these modalities is limited. In addition to traditional multimodal therapy, VR therapy has been used in patients with phantom limb pain and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). A systematic review on VR applications in phantom limb pain from 2024 indicated that all studies measuring pain intensity as an outcome consistently reported a decrease in mean pain intensity after a VR session [85]. However, the long-term effects of VR therapy on phantom limb pain have not been adequately studied. Because the mechanism of phantom limb pain is not yet fully understood, the mechanism of VR therapy for this condition remains unclear, although it may be similar to that of mirror therapy [85]. Most trials investigating VR therapy for CRPS have been based on the concept of virtual embodiment. By watching and moving or being touched on their real body synchronously with the virtual body, individuals can experience the illusion that the virtual body is their own [86]. However, the results of VR therapy for CRPS remain controversial. Won et al. [87] reported no improvement in pain scores after virtual mirror therapy. However, two other trials reported that the reduction in CRPS following VR sessions depended on the mode of therapy, such as heartbeat synchronization or the transparency and size of the virtual body [88,89]. Considering the complexity of the pathophysiology and management of neuropathic pain, understanding the effects of XR on neuropathic pain requires further investigation.

Intensive care unit

XR has the potential to enhance patient experiences in the intensive care unit (ICU) and improve outcomes; however, research on its application in this setting remains limited and further investigation is required for a clearer understanding of its short- and long-term impacts.

Patients in the ICU often experience neuropsychological effects, such as anxiety and delirium, and may even experience psychological sequelae such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after discharge. Merliot-Gailhoustet et al. [90] reported that VR systems with relaxation content resulted in a significant decrease in anxiety and improved overall discomfort. The effect of VR in mechanically ventilated patients was examined using a small sample size. VR content featuring outdoor scenes has been shown to be a feasible option for managing anxiety without complications [91]. ICU patients’ quality of sleep may also be improved with VR therapy. For patients admitted to the ICU after cardiac surgery, the use of meditation VR before sleep resulted in improved sleep quality, including fewer instances of waking and longer periods of deep sleep [92]. A group of researchers also tested the effects of VR therapy conducted after discharge from the ICU. Participants were randomly assigned to the ICU-specific information VR or control VR (nature scene) group. The ICU-specific VR group showed lower PTSD and depression scores than the control group. This difference was evident two days after the VR session and was maintained until the 6-month follow-up [93]. However, this study had a small sample size and only 30 patients completed the 6-month follow-up; therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution and further studies are needed.

Family support plays a crucial role in improving the emotional well-being of ICU patients. When physical visits are restricted or not possible, VR enables patients to have virtual visits with loved ones. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a cohort study investigated the effects of VR family visits on ICU patients. The VR visitation group showed a significantly lower incidence of delirium and lower scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale than the control group, which did not receive family visits [94].

Limitations and challenges of XR applications

Despite its theoretical advantages and the growing body of evidence supporting its benefits, XR technology in anesthesia faces several clinical and educational limitations. First, cost-effectiveness analyses and financial reimbursements are limited. Most studies on XR technology in clinical practice have focused on short-term outcomes, leaving its economic impact underexplored [95]. The lack of financial reimbursement poses a significant barrier given the high costs associated with XR systems, personnel, and infrastructure [95,96]. Without reimbursement, widespread clinical adoption remains impractical, although prices are expected to decrease as the technology evolves. Securing reimbursement through a cost-benefit analysis is essential for overcoming this challenge. Second, XR technology can cause adverse effects such as cybersickness, dizziness, and headaches [7,96,97]. These side effects may reduce the effectiveness of treatment and education. A more refined selection of hardware and content designs could help to mitigate this issue. Third, access to XR technology may be limited to specific regions or socioeconomic groups. While XR has the potential to promote healthcare equity by providing medical services and educational opportunities in underserved areas or populations, the high costs of XR systems and disparities in internet access may limit its adoption in populations that require it the most [97,98]. Solving this issue is challenging and requires collaboration among healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers [98]. Fourth, education and technical support are insufficient [99]. Healthcare professionals have limited opportunities to learn how to use XR technology, which can lead to a lack of confidence and thus hinder its practical implementation. Additionally, technical support is insufficient in many settings. Overcoming these challenges requires a cultural shift towards enhanced education, training, and stronger support for healthcare professionals.

Conclusion

Despite its limitations, XR has significant potential to improve patient outcomes and advance medical education. From the learner’s perspective, XR technologies can enhance the experience of both knowledge acquisition and skill training. In clinical practice, XR can help alleviate patient anxiety and pain by presenting a viable alternative or adjunct to sedatives and opioids. Overcoming several challenges, such as financial reimbursement barriers, is essential for the broader implementation of XR in anesthesia.

Acknowledgements

We would like to sincerely express our gratitude to Professor Jaemin Na from the Department of Visual Communication Design at Sunmoon University for creating conceptual illustrations that support some of the primary ideas of this paper.

Notes

Funding

None.

Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Data Availability

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Author Contributions

Sung Hee Han (Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Validation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Kristen L Kiroff (Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Methodology; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Sakura Kinjo (Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

References

1. Khan S. Extended reality: bringing the 3Rs together. In: Extended Reality for Healthcare Systems. Edited by Khan S, Alam M, Banday SA, Usta MS: Cambridge, Academic Press. 2023, pp 1-13.

2. Spiegel BM, Rizzo A, Persky S, Liran O, Wiederhold B, Woods S, et al. What is medical extended reality? A taxonomy defining the current breadth and depth of an evolving field. J Med Ext Real 2024;1:4–12. 10.1089/jmxr.2023.0012. 38505474.

3. Bryson S. Virtual reality: a definition history - a personal essay [Internet]. Ithaca (NY): arXiv, Cornell University; 2013 Dec 2013 [cited 2024 Oct 4]. Available from https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4322.

4. Abbas JR, O'Connor A, Ganapathy E, Isba R, Payton A, McGrath B, et al. What is virtual reality? A healthcare-focused systematic review of definitions. Health Policy Technol 2023;12:100741. 10.1016/j.hlpt.2023.100741.

5. Malik R, Abbas JR, Jayarajah C, Bruce IA, Tolley N. Mixed reality enhanced otolaryngology case-based learning: a randomized educational study. Laryngoscope 2023;133:1606–13. 10.1002/lary.30364. 36073727.

6. Bradley P. The history of simulation in medical education and possible future directions. Med Educ 2006;40:254–62. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02394.x. 16483328.

7. Mao RQ, Lan L, Kay J, Lohre R, Ayeni OR, Goel DP, et al. Immersive virtual reality for surgical training: a systematic review. J Surg Res 2021;268:40–58. 10.1016/j.jss.2021.06.045. 34284320.

8. García-Robles P, Cortés-Pérez I, Nieto-Escámez FA, García-López H, Obrero-Gaitán E, Osuna-Pérez MC. Immersive virtual reality and augmented reality in anatomy education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anat Sci Educ 2024;17:514–28. 10.1002/ase.2397. 38344900.

9. Duffy CC, Bass GA, Yi W, Rouhi A, Kaplan LJ, O'Sullivan E. Teaching airway management using virtual reality: a scoping review. Anesth Analg 2024;138:782–93. 10.1097/01.aoa.0001080144.95276.35. 37467164.

10. Demirel D, Yu A, Halic T, Sankaranarayanan G, Ryason A, Spindler D, et al. Virtual airway skills trainer (VAST) simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform 2016;220:91–7. 27046559.

11. Samosorn AB, Gilbert GE, Bauman EB, Khine J, McGonigle D. Teaching airway insertion skills to nursing faculty and students using virtual reality: a pilot study. Clin Simul Nurs 2020;39:18–26. 10.1016/j.ecns.2019.10.004.

12. Alismail A, Thomas J, Daher NS, Cohen A, Almutairi W, Terry MH, et al. Augmented reality glasses improve adherence to evidence-based intubation practice. Adv Med Educ Pract 2019;10:279–86. 10.2147/amep.s201640. 31191075.

13. Dias PL, Greenberg RG, Goldberg RN, Fisher K, Tanaka DT. Augmented reality-assisted video laryngoscopy and simulated neonatal intubations: a pilot study. Pediatrics 2021;147e2020005009. 10.1542/peds.2020-005009. 33602798.

14. Kim TE, Tsui BC. Simulation-based ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia curriculum for anesthesiology residents. Korean J Anesthesiol 2019;72:13–23. 10.4097/kja.d.18.00317. 30481945.

15. Chuan A, Qian J, Bogdanovych A, Kumar A, McKendrick M, McLeod G. Design and validation of a virtual reality trainer for ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2023;78:739–46. 10.1111/anae.16015. 37010989.

16. Kim JY, Lee JS, Lee JH, Park YS, Cho J, Koh JC. Virtual reality simulator’s effectiveness on the spine procedure education for trainee: a randomized controlled trial. Korean J Anesthesiol 2023;76:213–26. 10.4097/kja.22491. 36323305.

17. Vrillon A, Gonzales-Marabal L, Ceccaldi PF, Plaisance P, Desrentes E, Paquet C, et al. Using virtual reality in lumbar puncture training improves students learning experience. BMC Med Educ 2022;22:244. 10.1186/s12909-022-03317-7. 35379253.

18. Mousavi S, Karami M, Mireskandari SM, Samadi S. Effects of virtual reality technology on knowledge, attitudes, and skills of anesthesia residents. Arch Anesthesiol Crit care 2022;8:358–63.

19. Zheng T, Xie H, Gao F, Gong C, Lin W, Ye P, et al. Research and application of a teaching platform for combined spinal-epidural anesthesia based on virtual reality and haptic feedback technology. BMC Med Educ 2023;23:794. 10.1186/s12909-023-04758-4. 37880665.

20. Huang X, Yan Z, Gong C, Zhou Z, Xu H, Qin C, et al. A mixed-reality stimulator for lumbar puncture training: a pilot study. BMC Med Educ 2023;23:178. 10.1186/s12909-023-04173-9. 36949483.

21. Savir S, Khan AA, Yunus RA, Gbagornah P, Levy N, Rehman TA, et al. Virtual reality training for central venous catheter placement: an interventional feasibility study incorporating virtual reality Into a standard training curriculum of novice trainees. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2024;38:2187–97. 10.1053/j.jvca.2024.07.002. 39048413.

22. Shi Y, Shen G. Haptic Sensing and Feedback Techniques toward Virtual Reality. Research (Wash DC) 2024;7:0333. 10.34133/research.0333. 38533183.

23. Rangarajan K, Davis H, Pucher PH. Systematic review of virtual haptics in surgical simulation: a valid educational tool? J Surg Educ 2020;77:337–47. 10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.09.006. 31564519.

24. Rochlen LR, Putnam E, Levine R, Tait AR. Mixed reality simulation for peripheral intravenous catheter placement training. BMC Med Educ 2022;22:876. 10.1186/s12909-022-03946-y. 36528576.

25. Bracq MS, Michinov E, Jannin P. Virtual reality simulation in nontechnical skills training for healthcare professionals: a systematic review. Simul Healthc 2019;14:188–94. 10.1097/sih.0000000000000347. 30601464.

26. Putnam EM, Rochlen LR, Alderink E, Auge J, Popov V, Levine R, et al. Virtual reality simulation for critical pediatric airway management training. J Clin Transl Res 2021;7:93–9. 10.18053/jctres.07.202101.008. 34104812.

27. Chan J, Chan C, Chia P, Goy R, Sng BL. Novice learners' perspectives on obstetric airway crisis decision-making training using virtual reality simulation. Int J Obstet Anesth 2024;57:103926. 10.1016/j.ijoa.2023.103926. 37866972.

28. Sankaranarayanan G, Wooley L, Hogg D, Dorozhkin D, Olasky J, Chauhan S, et al. Immersive virtual reality-based training improves response in a simulated operating room fire scenario. Surg Endosc 2018;32:3439–49. 10.1007/s00464-018-6063-x. 29372313.

29. Katz D, Hyers B, Hojsak S, Shin DW, Wang Z, Park C, et al. Utilization of virtual reality for operating room fire safety training: a randomized trial. Virtual Reality 2023;27:3211–9. 10.1007/s10055-023-00866-0.

30. Sutcliffe KM, Lewton E, Rosenthal MM. Communication failures: an insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Acad Med 2004;79:186–94. 10.1097/00001888-200402000-00019. 14744724.

31. Bertrand P, Guegan J, Robieux L, McCall CA, Zenasni F. Learning empathy through virtual reality: multiple strategies for training empathy-related abilities using body ownership illusions in embodied virtual reality. Front Robot AI 2018;5:26. 10.3389/frobt.2018.00026. 33500913.

32. Hoek K, Sarton E, van Velzen M. Response to correspondance on patient-embodied virtual reality as a learning tool for therapeutic communication skills among anaesthesiologists: a phenomenological study. Patient Educ Couns 2023;117:107980. 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107980. 37730465.

33. Goyal R. Surgeons and anesthesiologists: need to communicate? J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2013;29:297–8. 10.4103/0970-9185.117040. 24106349.

34. Chheang V, Fischer V, Buggenhagen H, Huber T, Huettl F, Kneist W, et al. Toward interprofessional team training for surgeons and anesthesiologists using virtual reality. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2020;15:2109–18. 10.1007/s11548-020-02276-y. 33083969.

35. Koller D, Goldman RD. Distraction techniques for children undergoing procedures: a critical review of pediatric research. J Pediatr Nurs 2012;27:652–81. 10.1016/j.pedn.2011.08.001. 21925588.

36. Teh JJ, Pascoe DJ, Hafeji S, Parchure R, Koczoski A, Rimmer MP, et al. Efficacy of virtual reality for pain relief in medical procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 2024;22:64. 10.1186/s12916-024-03266-6. 38355563.

37. Waller A, Forshaw K, Bryant J, Carey M, Boyes A, Sanson-Fisher R. Preparatory education for cancer patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review of volume and quality of research output over time. Patient Educ Couns 2015;98:1540–9. 10.1016/j.pec.2015.05.008. 26072423.

38. de Carvalho MR, Freire RC, Nardi AE. Virtual reality as a mechanism for exposure therapy. World J Biol Psychiatry 2010;11:220–30. 10.3109/15622970802575985. 20218785.

39. Duff AJ. Incorporating psychological approaches into routine paediatric venepuncture. Arch Dis Child 2003;88:931–7. 10.1136/adc.88.10.931. 14500318.

40. Gold JI, Kim SH, Kant AJ, Joseph MH, Rizzo AS. Effectiveness of virtual reality for pediatric pain distraction during i.v. placement. Cyberpsychol Behav 2006;9:207–12. 10.1089/cpb.2006.9.207. 16640481.

41. Piskorz J, Czub M. Effectiveness of a virtual reality intervention to minimize pediatric stress and pain intensity during venipuncture. J Spec Pediatr Nurs 2018;23:e12201. 10.1111/jspn.12201. 29155488.

42. Gerçeker GÖ, Binay Ş, Bilsin E, Kahraman A, Yılmaz HB. Effects of virtual reality and external cold and vibration on pain in 7- to 12-year-old children during phlebotomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Perianesth Nurs 2018;33:981–9. 10.1016/j.jopan.2017.12.010. 29559294.

43. Atzori B, Hoffman HG, Vagnoli L, Patterson DR, Alhalabi W, Messeri A, et al. Virtual reality analgesia during venipuncture in pediatric patients with onco-hematological diseases. Front Psychol 2018;9:2508. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02508. 30618938.

44. Wei Q, Sun R, Liang Y, Chen D. Virtual reality technology reduces the pain and anxiety of children undergoing vein puncture: a meta-analysis. BMC Nurs 2024;23:541. 10.1186/s12912-024-02184-5. 39112987.

45. Ryu JH, Han SH, Hwang SM, Lee J, Do SH, Kim JH, et al. Effects of virtual reality education on procedural pain and anxiety during venipuncture in children: a randomized clinical trial. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;9:849541. 10.3389/fmed.2022.849541. 35463010.

46. Wong CL, Choi KC. Effects of an immersive virtual reality intervention on pain and anxiety among pediatric patients undergoing venipuncture: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2023;6e230001. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.0001. 36795410.

47. Hoerauf KH, Wallner T, Akca O, Taslimi R, Sessler DI. Exposure to sevoflurane and nitrous oxide during four different methods of anesthetic induction. Anesth Analg 1999;88:925–9. 10.1213/00000539-199904000-00045. 10195550.

48. Jung HS, Kim DW, Choi JW, Kang YJ, Lim YG, Ryu KH. Comparison of TIVA and VIMA for endocrine stress response and anesthesia characteristics. Korean J Anesthesiol 2006;51:278–84. 10.4097/kjae.2006.51.3.278.

49. Ramgolam A, Hall GL, Zhang G, Hegarty M, von Ungern-Sternberg BS. Inhalational versus intravenous induction of anesthesia in children with a high risk of perioperative respiratory adverse events: a randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology 2018;128:1065–74. 10.1097/aln.0000000000002152. 29498948.

50. Werner E. The use of virtual reality as a standard of care in verified burn centers. Burns 2024;50:808–12. 10.1016/j.burns.2024.01.010. 38336495.

51. Das DA, Grimmer KA, Sparnon AL, McRae SE, Thomas BH. The efficacy of playing a virtual reality game in modulating pain for children with acute burn injuries: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN87413556]. BMC Pediatr 2005;5:1. 10.1186/1471-2431-5-1. 15745448.

52. Hoffman HG, Patterson DR, Rodriguez RA, Peña R, Beck W, Meyer WJ. Virtual reality analgesia for children with large severe burn wounds during burn wound debridement. Front Virtual Real 2020;1:602299. 10.3389/frvir.2020.602299. 33585833.

53. Norouzkhani N, Chaghian Arani R, Mehrabi H, Bagheri Toolaroud P, Ghorbani Vajargah P, Mollaei A, et al. Effect of virtual reality-based interventions on pain during wound care in burn patients; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Acad Emerg Med 2022;10e84. 36426174.

54. Kaya M, Karaman Özlü Z. The effect of virtual reality on pain, anxiety, and fear during burn dressing in children: a randomized controlled study. Burns 2023;49:788–96. 10.1016/j.burns.2022.06.001. 35753857.

55. Turrado V, Guzmán Y, Jiménez-Lillo J, Villegas E, de Lacy FB, Blanch J, et al. Exposure to virtual reality as a tool to reduce peri-operative anxiety in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: a single-center prospective randomized clinical trial. Surg Endosc 2021;35:4042–7. 10.1007/s00464-021-08407-z. 33683433.

56. Chiu PL, Li H, Yap KY, Lam KC, Yip PR, Wong CL. Virtual reality-based intervention to reduce preoperative anxiety in adults undergoing elective surgery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2023;6e2340588. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.40588. 37906193.

57. Ryu JH, Park SJ, Park JW, Kim JW, Yoo HJ, Kim TW, et al. Randomized clinical trial of immersive virtual reality tour of the operating theatre in children before anaesthesia. Br J Surg 2017;104:1628–33. 10.1002/bjs.10684. 28975600.

58. Ryu JH, Park JW, Nahm FS, Jeon YT, Oh AY, Lee HJ, et al. The effect of gamification through a virtual reality on preoperative anxiety in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia: a prospective, randomized, and controlled trial. J Clin Med 2018;7:284. 10.3390/jcm7090284. 30227602.

59. Koo CH, Park JW, Ryu JH, Han SH. The effect of virtual reality on preoperative anxiety: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Med 2020;9:3151. 10.3390/jcm9103151. 33003411.

60. Rizzo MG Jr, Costello JP 2nd, Luxenburg D, Cohen JL, Alberti N, Kaplan LD. Augmented reality for perioperative anxiety in patients undergoing surgery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2023;6e2329310. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.29310. 37589975.

61. Eijlers R, Dierckx B, Staals LM, Berghmans JM, van der Schroeff MP, Strabbing EM, et al. Virtual reality exposure before elective day care surgery to reduce anxiety and pain in children: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2019;36:728–37. 10.1097/eja.0000000000001059. 31356373.

62. Chimento-Díaz S, Sánchez-García P, Franco-Antonio C, Santano-Mogena E, Espino-Tato I, Cordovilla-Guardia S. Factors associated with the acceptance of new technologies for ageing in place by people over 64 years of age. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:2947. 10.3390/ijerph19052947. 35270640.

63. Boyles B. Virtual reality and augmented reality in education [Internet]. West Point (NY): Center For Teaching Excellence, United States Military Academy; 2017 [cited 2024 Oct 4].

64. Chamberland C, Bransi M, Boivin A, Jacques S, Gagnon J, Tremblay S. The effect of augmented reality on preoperative anxiety in children and adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. Paediatr Anaesth 2024;34:153–9. 10.1111/pan.14793. 37925608.

65. Ryu JH, Ko D, Han JW, Park JW, Shin A, Han SH, et al. The proper timing of virtual reality experience for reducing preoperative anxiety of pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial. Front Pediatr 2022;10:899152. 10.3389/fped.2022.899152. 36177450.

66. Wu J, Yan J, Zhang L, Chen J, Cheng Y, Wang Y, et al. The effectiveness of distraction as preoperative anxiety management technique in pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Nurs Stud 2022;130:104232. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104232. 35367844.

67. Jung MJ, Libaw JS, Ma K, Whitlock EL, Feiner JR, Sinskey JL. Pediatric distraction on induction of anesthesia with virtual reality and perioperative anxiolysis: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg 2021;132:798–806. 10.1213/ane.0000000000005004. 32618627.

68. Uysal G, Düzkaya DS, Bozkurt G, Akdağ MY, Akça SÖ. The effect of watching videos using virtual reality during operating room transfer on the fear andanxiety of children aged 6-12 undergoing inguinal hernia surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Nurs 2023;72:e152–7. 10.1016/j.pedn.2023.06.022. 37349226.

69. Lin CT, Lane AS, Annick ET, Klein MJ, Lau J, Karnwal A, et al. Usability and satisfaction of augmented reality during pediatric anesthesia induction: a pilot study. J Med Ext Real 2024;1:44–52. 10.1089/jmxr.2023.0009.

70. Almedhesh SA, Elgzar WT, Ibrahim HA, Osman HA. The effect of virtual reality on anxiety, stress, and hemodynamic parameters during cesarean section: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Saudi Med J 2022;43:360–9. 10.15537/smj.2022.43.4.20210921. 35414614.

71. Xu Y, Shou Y, Li Y, Chen D, Wen Y, Huang X, et al. Virtual reality treatment could reduce anxiety for women undergoing cesarean section with spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2024;310:1509–16. 10.1007/s00404-024-07556-5. 38795137.

72. Alaterre C, Duceau B, Sung Tsai E, Zriouel S, Bonnet F, Lescot T, et al. Virtual reality for peripheral regional anesthesia (VR-PERLA Study). J Clin Med 2020;9:215. 10.3390/jcm9010215. 31941129.

73. Tharion JG, Kale S. Patient satisfaction through an immersive experience using a mobile phone-based head-mounted display during arthroscopic knee surgery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Analg 2021;133:940–8. 10.1213/ane.0000000000005666. 34283040.

74. Gamal M, Rady A, Gamal M, Hassan H. Efficacy of virtual reality distraction technique for anxiety and pain control in orthopedic forearm surgeries performed under supraclavicular brachial plexus block: a randomized controlled study. Egypt J Anaesth 2023;39:468–76. 10.1080/11101849.2023.2223829.

75. Arifin J, Mochamat M, Pramadika T, Paramita D, Nurcahyo WI. Effects of immersive virtual reality on patient anxiety during surgery under regional anesthesia: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Pain Med 2023;13e130790. 10.5812/aapm-130790. 37645005.

76. Chan E, Foster S, Sambell R, Leong P. Clinical efficacy of virtual reality for acute procedural pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2018;13e0200987. 10.1371/journal.pone.0200987. 30052655.

77. Pandrangi VC, Shah SN, Bruening JD, Wax MK, Clayburgh D, Andersen PE, et al. Effect of virtual reality on pain management and opioid use among hospitalized patients after head and neck surgery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022;148:724–30. 10.1001/jamaoto.2022.1121. 35679057.

78. Wang Y, Sun J, Yu K, Liu X, Liu L, Miao H, et al. Virtual reality exposure reduce acute postoperative pain in female patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecology surgery: A Randomized Control Trial (RCT) study. J Clin Anesth 2024;97:111525. 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111525. 38870701.

79. Araujo-Duran J, Kopac O, Montalvo Campana M, Bakal O, Sessler DI, Hofstra RL, et al. Virtual reality distraction for reducing acute postoperative pain after hip arthroplasty: a randomized trial. Anesth Analg 2024;138:751–9. 10.1213/ane.0000000000006642. 37678233.

80. Lier EJ, Oosterman JM, Assmann R, de Vries M, van Goor H. The effect of virtual reality on evoked potentials following painful electrical stimuli and subjective pain. Sci Rep 2020;10:9067. 10.1038/s41598-020-66035-4. 32494060.

81. Hoffman HG, Richards TL, Coda B, Bills AR, Blough D, Richards AL, et al. Modulation of thermal pain-related brain activity with virtual reality: evidence from fMRI. Neuroreport 2004;15:1245–8. 10.1097/01.wnr.0000127826.73576.91. 15167542.

82. Garcia LM, Birckhead BJ, Krishnamurthy P, Sackman J, Mackey IG, Louis RG, et al. An 8-week self-administered at-home behavioral skills-based virtual reality program for chronic low back pain: double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted during COVID-19. J Med Internet Res 2021;23e26292. 10.2196/26292. 33484240.

83. Maddox T, Sparks C, Oldstone L, Maddox R, Ffrench K, Garcia H, et al. Durable chronic low back pain reductions up to 24 months after treatment for an accessible, 8-week, in-home behavioral skills-based virtual reality program: a randomized controlled trial. Pain Med 2023;24:1200–3. 10.1093/pm/pnad070. 37220894.

84. Bilika P, Karampatsou N, Stavrakakis G, Paliouras A, Theodorakis Y, Strimpakos N, et al. Virtual reality-based exercise therapy for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a scoping review. Healthcare (Basel) 2023;11:2412. 10.3390/healthcare11172412. 37685446.

85. Hali K, Manzo MA, Koucheki R, Wunder JS, Jenkinson RJ, Mayo AL, et al. Use of virtual reality for the management of phantom limb pain: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 2024;46:629–36. 10.1080/09638288.2023.2172222. 36724203.

86. Martini M, Perez-Marcos D, Sanchez-Vives MV. What color is my arm? changes in skin color of an embodied virtual arm modulates pain threshold. Front Hum Neurosci 2013;7:438. 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00438. 23914172.

87. Won AS, Barreau AC, Gaertner M, Stone T, Zhu J, Wang CY, et al. Assessing the feasibility of an open-source virtual reality mirror visual feedback module for complex regional pain syndrome: pilot usability study. J Med Internet Res 2021;23e16536. 10.2196/16536. 34037530.

88. Solcà M, Ronchi R, Bello-Ruiz J, Schmidlin T, Herbelin B, Luthi F, et al. Heartbeat-enhanced immersive virtual reality to treat complex regional pain syndrome. Neurology 2018;91:e479–89. 10.1212/wnl.0000000000005905. 29980635.

89. Matamala-Gomez M, Diaz Gonzalez AM, Slater M, Sanchez-Vives MV. Decreasing pain ratings in chronic arm pain through changing a virtual body: different strategies for different pain types. J Pain 2019;20:685–97. 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.12.001. 30562584.

90. Merliot-Gailhoustet L, Raimbert C, Garnier O, Carr J, De Jong A, Molinari N, et al. Discomfort improvement for critically ill patients using electronic relaxation devices: results of the cross-over randomized controlled trial E-CHOISIR (Electronic-CHOIce of a System for Intensive care Relaxation). Crit Care 2022;26:263. 10.1186/s13054-022-04136-4. 36057612.

91. Haley AC, Wacker DA. Cinematic virtual reality for anxiety management in mechanically ventilated patients: a feasibility and pilot study. Acute Crit Care 2022;37:230–6. 10.4266/acc.2021.00843. 35172527.

92. Lee SY, Kang J. Effect of virtual reality meditation on sleep quality of intensive care unit patients: a randomised controlled trial. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2020;59:102849. 10.1016/j.iccn.2020.102849. 32241625.

93. Vlake JH, Van Bommel J, Wils EJ, Korevaar TI, Bienvenu OJ, Klijn E, et al. Virtual reality to improve sequelae of the postintensive care syndrome: a multicenter, randomized controlled feasibility study. Crit Care Explor 2021;3e0538. 10.1097/cce.0000000000000538. 34549192.

94. He M, Li X, Zhang T, Jin X, Hu C. The fifth generation mobile communication technology plus virtual reality system for intensive care unit visits during COVID-19 pandemic: keep the delirium away. J Nurs Manag 2022;30:3885–7. 10.1111/jonm.13450. 36468368.

95. Gómez Bergin AD, Craven MP. Virtual, augmented, mixed, and extended reality interventions in healthcare: a systematic review of health economic evaluations and cost-effectiveness. BMC Digit Health 2023;1:53. 10.1186/s44247-023-00054-9.

96. Delshad SD, Almario CV, Fuller G, Luong D, Spiegel BM. Economic analysis of implementing virtual reality therapy for pain among hospitalized patients. NPJ Digit Med 2018;1:22. 10.1038/s41746-018-0026-4. 31304304.

97. Laspro M, Groysman L, Verzella A, Kimberly L, Flores R. The use of virtual reality in surgical training: implications for education, patient safety, and global health equity. Surgeries 2023;4:635–46. 10.3390/surgeries4040061.

98. Lakshminarayanan V, Ravikumar A, Sriraman H, Alla S, Chattu VK. Health care equity through intelligent edge computing and augmented reality/virtual reality: a systematic review. J Multidiscip Healthc 2023;16:2839–59. 10.2147/jmdh.s419923. 37753339.

99. Kouijzer MM, Kip H, Bouman YH, Kelders SM. Implementation of virtual reality in healthcare: a scoping review on the implementation process of virtual reality in various healthcare settings. Implement Sci Commun 2023;4:67. 10.1186/s43058-023-00442-2. 37328858.

Article information Continued

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.