Sedation protocols during spinal anesthesia often involve sedative drugs associated with complications. We investigated whether virtual reality (VR) distraction could be applied during endoscopic urologic surgery under spinal anesthesia and yield better satisfaction than pharmacologic sedation. VR distraction without sedative was compared with pharmacologic sedation using repeat doses of midazolam 1–2 mg every 30 min during urologic surgery under spinal anesthesia. We compared the satisfaction of patients, surgeons, and anesthesiologists, as rated on a 5-point prespecified verbal rating scale. Two surgeons and two anesthesiologists rated the scale and an overall score was reported after discussion. Thirty-seven patients were randomized to a VR group (n = 18) or a sedation group (n = 19). The anesthesiologist’s satisfaction score was significantly higher in the VR group than in the sedation group (median (interquartile range) 5 (5–5) vs. 4 (4–5), p = 0.005). The likelihood of both patients and anesthesiologists being extremely satisfied was significantly higher in the VR group than in the sedation group. Agreement between the scores for surgeons and those for anesthesiologists was very good (kappa = 0.874 and 0.944, respectively). The incidence of apnea was significantly lower in the VR group than in the sedation group (n = 1, 5.6% vs. n = 7, 36.8%, p = 0.042). The present findings suggest that VR distraction is better than drug sedation with midazolam in terms of patient’s and anesthesiologist’s satisfaction and avoiding the respiratory side effects of midazolam during endoscopic urologic surgery under spinal anesthesia.

Background: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is a noninvasive thermodestructive procedure targeting internal organs with concentrated sonification energy that may cause pain. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of epidural analgesia (EA) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) in HIFU treatment of uterine adenomyosis. Materials and Methods: Sixty-eight patients were included in this case-control study. Thirty-seven patients underwent MAC; 31 patients underwent fluoroscope-guided epidural analgesia. The primary outcome was a frequency of patients reporting severe or very severe intraoperative pain. Secondary outcomes were differences in dosages of analgesics, ablation ratio, and other clinical factors. Results: The EA group reported a significantly lower frequency of severe or very severe intraoperative pain than did the MAC group (41.9% vs. 75.7%; p ¼ .006). Consumption of remifentanil during treatment was significantly lower in the EA group (173 ± 189 mg vs. 426 ± 380 mg; p ¼ .001), as was the use of fentanyl in the recovery room (52 ± 38 mg vs. 75 ± 44 mg; p ¼ .030). Multivariable analysis revealed EA to be the largest contributing factor to increased nonperfused volume ratio (B ¼ 0.41; 95% confidence interval ¼ 0.29 to 0.53; p < .001). The frequency of thermal injury after HIFU was significantly lower in the EA group (22.6% vs. 54.1%; p ¼ .008). Conclusions: EA during HIFU treatment of uterine adenomyosis improved quality of pain control and ablation ratio over MAC without increasing risk of treatment-related complications. EA also reduced consumption of opioid analgesics during and after HIFU treatment. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract