486 Virtual Reality and Surgical Oncology: Where Are We?
C P Y Ng- Surgery
Abstract
Aim
Less than 5% of patients from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have access to basic cancer surgery. Virtual reality (VR) is heralded as the novel tool to build surgical capacity and capabilities, yet its adoption in surgical oncology is poorly understood. The systematic review aimed to scope the utility of VR across surgical specialities and modalities and identify gaps.
Method
The systematic review was carried out by means of a search on the Web of Science, including all articles and reviews on virtual reality and surgical oncology published between January 2011 and January 2020 following the PRISMA guidance. Of 95 papers initially identified, 24 studies were included.
Results
The review revealed gaps in application, accessibility and clinical evaluation of VR. VR was applied the most in open (58.3%), followed by in endoscopic (20.8%) and robotic (20.8%) cancer surgeries. Neurosurgery led in the use of VR (n = 13, 54.2%), followed by urology (n = 8, 33.3%) and gynaecology (n = 2, 8.3%). In terms of the characteristics, 11 (57.9%) articles described VR tools with high fidelity; and 12 (63.2%), with haptic feedback. While all VR illustrated face and content validity, only 12 (63.2%) exhibited construct validity and one (5.3%) demonstrated predictive validity.
Conclusions
VR is disproportionately developed for complex, high risk cancer surgeries. The asynchrony between its development and actual global cancer surgery demand means the technology is not effectively, efficiently, and equitably utilised to realise its surgical capacity-building potential. Future research should prioritise in affordable, clinically evaluated VR technology for high demand, common cancer surgeries required in LMICs.