scholarly journals Augmented reality navigation in spine surgery: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 163 (3) ◽  
pp. 843-852
Author(s):  
Gustav Burström ◽  
Oscar Persson ◽  
Erik Edström ◽  
Adrian Elmi-Terander
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Augmented Reality ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Surgical Navigation ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Spinal Navigation

Abstract Background Conventional spinal navigation solutions have been criticized for having a negative impact on time in the operating room and workflow. AR navigation could potentially alleviate some of these concerns while retaining the benefits of navigated spine surgery. The objective of this study is to summarize the current evidence for using augmented reality (AR) navigation in spine surgery. Methods We performed a systematic review to explore the current evidence for using AR navigation in spine surgery. PubMed and Web of Science were searched from database inception to November 27, 2020, for data on the AR navigation solutions; the reported efficacy of the systems; and their impact on workflow, radiation, and cost-benefit relationships. Results In this systematic review, 28 studies were included in the final analysis. The main findings were superior workflow and non-inferior accuracy when comparing AR to free-hand (FH) or conventional surgical navigation techniques. A limited number of studies indicated decreased use of radiation. There were no studies reporting mortality, morbidity, or cost-benefit relationships. Conclusions AR provides a meaningful addition to FH surgery and traditional navigation methods for spine surgery. However, the current evidence base is limited and prospective studies on clinical outcomes and cost-benefit relationships are needed.

scholarly journals The Use of Augmented and Mixed Reality Technology to Improve Surgical Outcomes: a Systematic Review Protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Bollen ◽  
Joshua Solomon ◽  
Matthew Stubbs ◽  
Benjamin Langridge ◽  
Peter E. Butler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Augmented Reality ◽  
Real World ◽  
Surgical Outcomes ◽  
Mixed Reality ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The Real ◽  
Current Evidence Base

Abstract BackgroundThe use of mixed and augmented reality in surgery is a novel and rapidly developing field. Augmented reality is a technology which overlays virtual images on to the real world and is supported by a variety of platforms. Mixed reality is a newer technology, which, in contrast, allows the user to interact with virtual objects projected onto the real world. These technologies have been employed in a range of surgical contexts and specialities and have generated significant public interest, however, the evidence supporting their proposed benefits is unclear. This systematic review aims to critically appraise the intraoperative use of mixed and augmented reality technologies to improve surgical outcomes and provide directions for future research. Methods This systematic review will follow the PRISMA guidelines and search the MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library electronic databases. All clinical studies reporting empirical data on the intraoperative use of augmented or mixed reality technologies will be eligible for inclusion. Identified studies will be screened for inclusion by three authors in parallel, with a fourth author resolving any discrepancies. Risk of bias will be assessed in accordance with Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guidance. The quality of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the GRADE approach.DiscussionThis will be the first systematic review performed with a specific focus on the use of mixed reality in surgery. If augmented and mixed reality are to become established tools in surgery, it is necessary to understand their use cases, advantages, limitations and cost-effectiveness. This is a young but rapidly evolving field; this synthesis of the current evidence base will provide direction for future research and development.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42020205892

Exercise therapy for whiplash-associated disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Chrcanovic ◽  
Johan Larsson ◽  
Eva-Maj Malmström ◽  
Hans Westergren ◽  
Birgitta Häggman-Henrikson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Exercise Therapy ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Whiplash Associated Disorders ◽  
Neck Disability

Abstract Objectives Acute as well as chronic pain syndromes are common after whiplash trauma and exercise therapy is proposed as one possible intervention strategy. The aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the effect of exercise therapy in patients with Whiplash-Associated Disorders for the improvement of neck pain and neck disability, compared with other therapeutic interventions, placebo interventions, no treatment, or waiting list. Content The review was registered in Prospero (CRD42017060356) and conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A literature search in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane from inception until January 13, 2020 was combined with a hand search to identify eligible randomized controlled studies. Abstract screening, full text assessment and risk of bias assessment (Cochrane RoB 2.0) were conducted by two independent reviewers. Summary The search identified 4,103 articles. After removal of duplicates, screening of 2,921 abstracts and full text assessment of 100 articles, 27 articles that reported data for 2,127 patients were included. The included articles evaluated the effect of exercise therapy on neck pain, neck disability or other outcome measures and indicated some positive effects from exercise, but many studies lacked control groups not receiving active treatment. Studies on exercise that could be included in the random-effect meta-analysis showed significant short-term effects on neck pain and medium-term effects on neck disability. Outlook Despite a large number of articles published in the area of exercise therapy and Whiplash-Associated Disorders, the current evidence base is weak. The results from the present review with meta-analysis suggests that exercise therapy may provide additional effect for improvement of neck pain and disability in patients with Whiplash-Associated Disorders.

Active warming after caesarean section to prevent neonatal hypothermia: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (12) ◽  
pp. 829-837
Author(s):  
Aliona Vilinsky-Redmond ◽  
Maria Brenner ◽  
Linda Nugent ◽  
Margaret McCann
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Caesarean Section ◽  
Elective Caesarean Section ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Skin Contact ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Skin To Skin ◽  
Neonatal Hypothermia

There is a lack of evidence on the effects of perioperative warming on maternal and neonatal outcomes in women undergoing elective caesarean section who are performing at-birth skin-to-skin contact. This study aimed to provide a systematic review of the current evidence base on the effects of perioperative warming versus no warming. Inclusion criteria included randomised controlled trials involving pregnant women ≥18 years old undergoing an elective caesarean section at term under regional anaesthesia and who initiated at-birth neonatal skin-to-skin contact. Studies investigated active warming versus no active warming interventions. Three studies were included, with a total of 286 participants. Active warming of women resulted in significantly less occurrence of neonatal hypothermia, with no difference in maternal hypothermia. Perioperative active warming of mothers and newborns who had skin-to-skin contact may be beneficial. The quality of the included studies was low, so the review findings should be interpreted with caution. High quality studies with larger sample sizes need to be undertaken.

scholarly journals Physical Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 1036-1048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Tierney ◽  
Alexander Fraser ◽  
Norelee Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Population Group ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Activity Levels ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Physical Activity Levels ◽  
Methodological Considerations

Background:Physical activity is associated with improved health outcomes in many populations. It is assumed that physical activity levels in the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) population may be reduced as a result of symptoms of the disease. The objective of this review is to establish the current evidence base for levels of physical activity in the RA population.Methods:A systematic review was performed of 7 databases (Ema-base, MEDLINE, AMED, Biomedical Reference Collection Expanded, CINAHL, Nursing and Allied Health Collection, and SportsDiscus) up to February 2011 to examine the evidence in the area.Results:One hundred and thirty-six studies were identified through electronic searching. One hundred and six were excluded based on title and/or abstract analysis and a further 14 were excluded based on full text analysis. Sixteen studies meeting the criteria were deemed suitable for inclusion. The results of the included studies indicate that the level of physical activity may be lower among individuals with RA when compared with healthy controls or normative data.Conclusions:There are a number of methodological considerations at play within the studies reviewed which prohibits definitive conclusion on the physical activity levels of this population group. Given the known health benefits of physical activity, further research in this area appears indicated.

scholarly journals Neuropsychological rehabilitation interventions for people with an acquired brain injury and their caregivers. A protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Eileen Mitchell ◽  
Elayne Ahern ◽  
Sanjib Saha ◽  
Dominic Trepel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Acquired Brain Injury ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology

Background: New emerging evidence has demonstrated the need for effective interventions to help people living with an acquired brain injury (ABI). Evidence on cost-effectiveness, which can help inform use of limited resources, is scarce in this area and therefore the purpose of this systematic review is to critically appraise and consolidate the current evidence on economic evaluations of ABI rehabilitation interventions. Methods: Systematic review methodology will be applied to identify, select and extract data from published economic evaluation studies (trial-based, non-trial based, simulation-based, decision model and trial-based model economic evaluations) of ABI treatment interventions in adults. A systematic literature search will be conducted on the following electronic databases: EMBASE, Econlit, CINAHL, Medline, Econlit, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and PsyclNFO. This review will only include cost-effectiveness analysis studies (e.g., cost per life year gained), cost-benefit and cost minimisation analyses in which the designs were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCT studies, cost-utility analyses (e.g., cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained or cost per disability-adjusted life year averted), cohort studies, and modeling studies. Only studies that were published in English, associated with adults who have an ABI will be included. There will be no restrictions on perspective, sample size, country, follow-up duration or setting. The search strategy terms will include the following: acquired brain injury, brain*; cost*; or cost–benefit analysis*. Following data extraction, a narrative summary and tables will be used to summarize the characteristics and results of included studies. Discussion: The findings from this review will be beneficial to health policy decision makers when examining the evidence of economic evaluations in this field. In addition, it is anticipated that this review will identify gaps in the current economic literature to inform future-related research. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020187469 (25th June 2020).

scholarly journals Evaluation of Technology-Enhanced Learning Programs for Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pam Nicoll ◽  
Sandra MacRury ◽  
Hugo C van Woerden ◽  
Keith Smyth
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Learner Satisfaction ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Technology Enhanced Learning ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Enhanced Learning ◽  
Satisfaction Surveys

BACKGROUND Technology-enhanced learning (TEL) programs are increasingly seen as the way in which education for health care professionals can be transformed, giving access to effective ongoing learning and training even where time or geographical barriers exist. Given the increasing emphasis on this mode of educational support for health care practitioners, it is vital that we can effectively evaluate and measure impact to ensure that TEL programs are effective and fit for purpose. This paper examines the current evidence base for the first time, in relation to the evaluation of TEL programs for health care professionals. OBJECTIVE We conducted a systematic review of the current literature relating to the evaluation of TEL programs for health care professionals and critically appraised the quality of the studies. METHODS This review employed specific search criteria to identify research studies that included evaluation of TEL for health care professionals. The databases searched included Medline Ovid, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus Advanced, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, ZETOC, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Explore Digital Library, Allied and Complementary Medicine, and Education Resources Information Center between January 2006 and January 2017. An additional hand search for relevant articles from reference lists was undertaken. Each of the studies identified was critically appraised for quality using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool. This approach produced a percentage total score for each study across specified categories. A proportion of the studies were independently assessed by an additional two reviewers. RESULTS The review identified 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The studies included scored totals across eight categories within a range of 37%-95% and an average score of 68%. Studies that measured TEL using learner satisfaction surveys, or combined pretest and posttest knowledge score testing with learner satisfaction surveys, were found to be the most common types of TEL evaluations evident in the literature. The studies reviewed had low scores across reporting on ethical matters, design, and data collection categories. CONCLUSIONS There continues to be a need to develop effective and standard TEL evaluation tools, and good quality studies that describe effective evaluation of TEL education for health care professionals. Studies often fail to provide sufficient detail to support transferability or direct future TEL health care education programs.

Augmented Reality Surgical Navigation in Spine Surgery to Minimize Staff Radiation Exposure

Spine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. E45-E53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Edström ◽  
Gustav Burström ◽  
Artur Omar ◽  
Rami Nachabe ◽  
Michael Söderman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Augmented Reality ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Surgical Navigation

Utility of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality in Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hasan Sumdani ◽  
Pedro Aguilar-Salinas ◽  
Mauricio J. Avila ◽  
Samuel R. Barber ◽  
Travis M. Dumont
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Augmented Reality ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Review Of The Literature

A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Evidence for the Use of Lifestyle Planning in People with Learning Disabilities

1999 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 148-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Rowe ◽  
A. Rudkin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Current Evidence Base

Lifestyle planning (LP) for people with learning disabilities is largely supported by qualitative rather than quantitative research. LP is a time-consuming and potentially resource-intensive area of practice which is becoming more prevalent in the UK. We present the first systematic review of the qualitative evidence base for the use of LP in people with learning disabilities. Such evidence concerns the special characteristics of LP and its outcomes in descriptive rather than quantitative terms. Qualitative research is usually aimed at enhancing validity by grounding theory in data collected. Twenty-one studies passed eligibility criteria for inclusion in this review, but only ten provided any outcome data, the others being concerned with process only. A replicable search strategy was employed and the resulting original data sources were critically reviewed with respect to major concepts and categories in the areas of: planning process, choices and preferences, ethics and outcomes. Explicitly person-centred approaches such as essential lifestyle planning are contrasted with more service-led methods such as individual programme planning. There are major methodological limitations in much of the available literature and suggestions for future research to clarify matters are made. The current evidence base suggests that no form of LP has significantly better outcomes than any other form and that it is not clear if LP in general enhances outcomes. Ongoing use of person centred planning in particular is informed by ethical considerations and is evolving in its structure and function.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document