Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT05707234 |
Other study ID # |
VRH.TKA |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
Phase 4
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
February 15, 2023 |
Est. completion date |
August 3, 2023 |
Study information
Verified date |
March 2024 |
Source |
University of Liege |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
For many years, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been a common and effective procedure to
treat chronic refractory joint pain. Although efforts must be pursued, as general anesthesia
remains the main tendency for TKA. Currently, the standard of care to manage procedural
anxiety is pharmacological sedation; i.e. the intravenous administration of additional
anesthetic agents such as propofol or midazolam. However, pharmacological sedation has
considerable undesirable side effects. Hence, risks of intraprocedural adverse events
including respiratory depression, hemodynamic perturbations, or paradoxical effects such as
hostility, aggression, and psychomotor agitation, are increased. The goal of this
prospective, single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial is to systematically
evaluate the impact of implementing a protocol of virtual reality hypnosis in patients
undergoing total knee arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia.
Description:
For many years, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been a common and effective procedure to
treat chronic refractory joint pain. With a worldwide aging population, as well as a rising
rate of obesity and related osteoarthritis, the utilization of TKA has considerably expanded
over time, and this increase is expected to continue. Accordingly, healthcare systems are
exploring various strategies to address this growing demand, while ensuring efficiency,
cost-effectiveness and safety. Among these approaches, and based on several reports comparing
the risks and benefits of general and regional anesthesia, a first attempt has been made to
switch from performing TKAs under general to spinal anesthesia. Although efforts must be
pursued, as general anesthesia remains the main tendency for TKA, results regarding spinal
anesthesia are extremely encouraging. As such, spinal anesthesia has been associated with a
decreased rate of complications, including wound infection, blood transfusions or mortality,
and with reduced length of surgery and hospital stay.
Yet, while spinal anesthesia prevents procedural pain and ensures immobility of the operative
territory, the patient is still awake, conscious of all the noises in the operating room, and
can have a high level of intraoperative anxiety. Currently, the standard of care to manage
procedural anxiety is pharmacological sedation; i.e. the intravenous administration of
additional anesthetic agents such as propofol or midazolam. However, pharmacological sedation
has considerable undesirable side effects. Hence, risks of intraprocedural adverse events
including respiratory depression, hemodynamic perturbations, or paradoxical effects such as
hostility, aggression, and psychomotor agitation, are increased. Moreover, it might lead to
longer procedure duration or time to discharge, slower recovery, and postoperative delirium
or cognitive dysfunction. In addition to these challenges, it becomes clear that procedural
sedation directly impacts consumption of drugs such as opioids, triggering the highlighted
risk of addiction.
In this context, new international guidelines for risk mitigation in pharmacological sedation
have emerged. Both American and European anesthesia societies recommend particular caution in
the use of sedative drugs, especially with benzodiazepines and in patients with obesity or
obstructive sleep apnea, which are highly comorbid with knee osteoarthritis. However, only
providing less, or even no sedatives at all, is not a valuable solution, as it would
negatively impact patient comfort and satisfaction and negatively affect clinical workflow.
Therefore, alternative, non-pharmacological interventions that would be able to reduce drug
requirements and associated risks while ensuring a similar patient experience are being
actively sought.
Among those approaches, there is currently a growing interest towards clinical hypnosis, a
one-to-one delivered technique inducing "A state of consciousness involving focused attention
and reduced peripheral awareness characterized by an enhanced capacity for response to
suggestion". The hypnotic state involves the capacities of absorption (tendency to be fully
involved in a mental experience), dissociation (a mental separation from the environment),
and suggestibility (tendency to comply with hypnotic suggestions). When combined during
surgery with conscious IV sedation and local or regional anesthesia, forming the so-called
hypnosedation, clinical hypnosis is associated with improved perioperative safety and comfort
as well as better clinical outcomes. More precisely, the use of clinical hypnosis during
medical procedures has been shown to reduce pain, emotional distress and anxiety while
preserving consciousness, spontaneous breathing, reflexes as well as hemodynamic and
metabolic changes, to decrease the time spent in the operating room, and to have a beneficial
impact on immediate recovery, characterized by reduced fatigue and postoperative nausea and
vomiting (PONV). Furthermore, this technique allows to significantly reduce the administrated
doses of IV sedation and the associated costs. Yet, several obstacles limit the use of
hypnosedation as a standard of care in the operating/ procedure room: the need for continuous
patient-side presence of trained professionals in the room (and the cost related to the
mobilization of these professionals), the small number of cases per day one healthcare
provider can handle, patient's language proficiency, as well as the heterogeneity of the
responses to the hypnotic suggestions of patients themselves.
To overcome those limitations, Oncomfort has created Digital Sedation™ sessions, classified
as Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), allowing to deliver clinical hypnosis - together with
additional integrative therapeutic approaches - through virtual reality, a technique called
Virtual Reality Hypnosis (VRH). Virtual reality (VR) is "a computer-generated simulation of a
lifelike environment that can be interacted with in a seemingly real or physical way by a
person, by means of responsive hardware such as a visor with screen or gloves with sensors.
In the medical field, VR has been used as a non-pharmacological mean to alleviate pain,
anxiety, and general discomfort during uncomfortable procedures. VR is thought to work by
distracting patients from uncomfortable procedures: by giving the illusion of really going
into the artificial world, VR is able to capture patient's attention away from the real
environment. Accordingly, VR could strengthen the level of absorption and dissociation
induced by clinical hypnosis, especially in low hypnotizable persons. Hence, VRH technology
allows to deliver clinical hypnosis - and its related benefits- to a considerably greater
number of patients. This automated way of delivering hypnosis responds to most of the
limitations of the use of clinical hypnosis mentioned supra (e.g. availability of trained
staff, language barrier,…).
To date, the Oncomfort's Digital Sedation™ is used in more than 100 hospitals, and more than
80 000 patients have already beneficiated from this type of VRH in daily clinical practice
(e.g. interventional radiology, oncology, surgery,…). In line with its intended use, first
studies have demonstrated that Digital Sedation™ reduces both experimental and clinical pain,
as well as procedural anxiety. In addition, preliminary results indicate that it might
replace midazolam during endoscopic urologic surgery, avoiding the respiratory side effects
associated with pharmacological sedation. Over the last year, at the CHU of Liège, Digital
Sedation™ has been offered to patients during orthopedic surgeries, demonstrating the
feasibility of using VRH during TKAs performed under spinal anesthesia. While results seem to
be positive in terms of performance of the procedure and patient satisfaction, the potential
beneficial impact of this solution has not been systematically addressed yet. The goal of the
present study is to objectify those effects, and in particular, to determine whether VRH can
replace - at least in part- the intraoperative administration of midazolam, allowing to avoid
its associated side effects while ensuring a similar patient's comfort.