-
JMIR MHealth and UHealth Nov 2020With the rise of mobile medicine, the development of new technologies such as smart sensing, and the popularization of personalized health concepts, the field of smart... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
With the rise of mobile medicine, the development of new technologies such as smart sensing, and the popularization of personalized health concepts, the field of smart wearable devices has developed rapidly in recent years. Among them, medical wearable devices have become one of the most promising fields. These intelligent devices not only assist people in pursuing a healthier lifestyle but also provide a constant stream of health care data for disease diagnosis and treatment by actively recording physiological parameters and tracking metabolic status. Therefore, wearable medical devices have the potential to become a mainstay of the future mobile medical market.
OBJECTIVE
Although previous reviews have discussed consumer trends in wearable electronics and the application of wearable technology in recreational and sporting activities, data on broad clinical usefulness are lacking. We aimed to review the current application of wearable devices in health care while highlighting shortcomings for further research. In addition to daily health and safety monitoring, the focus of our work was mainly on the use of wearable devices in clinical practice.
METHODS
We conducted a narrative review of the use of wearable devices in health care settings by searching papers in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library published since October 2015. Potentially relevant papers were then compared to determine their relevance and reviewed independently for inclusion.
RESULTS
A total of 82 relevant papers drawn from 960 papers on the subject of wearable devices in health care settings were qualitatively analyzed, and the information was synthesized. Our review shows that the wearable medical devices developed so far have been designed for use on all parts of the human body, including the head, limbs, and torso. These devices can be classified into 4 application areas: (1) health and safety monitoring, (2) chronic disease management, (3) disease diagnosis and treatment, and (4) rehabilitation. However, the wearable medical device industry currently faces several important limitations that prevent further use of wearable technology in medical practice, such as difficulties in achieving user-friendly solutions, security and privacy concerns, the lack of industry standards, and various technical bottlenecks.
CONCLUSIONS
We predict that with the development of science and technology and the popularization of personalized health concepts, wearable devices will play a greater role in the field of health care and become better integrated into people's daily lives. However, more research is needed to explore further applications of wearable devices in the medical field. We hope that this review can provide a useful reference for the development of wearable medical devices.
Topics: Delivery of Health Care; Health Facilities; Humans; Technology; Wearable Electronic Devices
PubMed: 33164904
DOI: 10.2196/18907 -
JAMA Otolaryngology-- Head & Neck... Mar 2017Head and neck cancers often require complex, labor-intensive surgeries, especially when free flap reconstruction is required. Enhanced recovery is important in this... (Review)
Review
Optimal Perioperative Care in Major Head and Neck Cancer Surgery With Free Flap Reconstruction: A Consensus Review and Recommendations From the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society.
IMPORTANCE
Head and neck cancers often require complex, labor-intensive surgeries, especially when free flap reconstruction is required. Enhanced recovery is important in this patient population but evidence-based protocols on perioperative care for this population are lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a consensus-based protocol for optimal perioperative care of patients undergoing head and neck cancer surgery with free flap reconstruction.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Following endorsement by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society to develop this protocol, a systematic review was conducted for each topic. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were initially searched to identify relevant publications on head and neck cancer surgery from 1965 through April 2015. Consistent key words for each topic included "head and neck surgery," "pharyngectomy," "laryngectomy," "laryngopharyngectomy," "neck dissection," "parotid lymphadenectomy," "thyroidectomy," "oral cavity resection," "glossectomy," and "head and neck." The final selection of literature included meta-analyses and systematic reviews as well as randomized controlled trials where available. In the absence of high-level data, case series and nonrandomized studies in head and neck cancer surgery patients or randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in non-head and neck cancer surgery patients, were considered. An international panel of experts in major head and neck cancer surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery reviewed and assessed the literature for quality and developed recommendations for each topic based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. All recommendations were graded following a consensus discussion among the expert panel.
FINDINGS
The literature search, including a hand search of reference lists, identified 215 relevant publications that were considered to be the best evidence for the topic areas. A total of 17 topic areas were identified for inclusion in the protocol for the perioperative care of patients undergoing major head and neck cancer surgery with free flap reconstruction. Best practice includes several elements of perioperative care. Among these elements are the provision of preoperative carbohydrate treatment, pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, perioperative antibiotics in clean-contaminated procedures, corticosteroid and antiemetic medications, short acting anxiolytics, goal-directed fluid management, opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia, frequent flap monitoring, early mobilization, and the avoidance of preoperative fasting.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The evidence base for specific perioperative care elements in head and neck cancer surgery is variable and in many cases information from different surgerical procedures form the basis for these recommendations. Clinical evaluation of these recommendations is a logical next step and further research in this patient population is warranted.
Topics: Free Tissue Flaps; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Nutritional Support; Patient Education as Topic; Perioperative Care; Plastic Surgery Procedures
PubMed: 27737447
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2016.2981 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Dec 2021Treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in adults is evolving, as new therapies have been explored and introduced in clinical practice, while other approaches have... (Review)
Review
Treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in adults is evolving, as new therapies have been explored and introduced in clinical practice, while other approaches have been refined or reconsidered. In this European Respiratory Society (ERS) guideline on non-continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapies for OSA, we present recommendations determined by a systematic review of the literature. It is an update of the 2011 ERS statement on non-CPAP therapies, advanced into a clinical guideline. A multidisciplinary group of experts, including pulmonary, surgical, dentistry and ear-nose-throat specialists, methodologists and patient representatives considered the most relevant clinical questions (for both clinicians and patients) relating to the management of OSA. Eight key clinical questions were generated and a systematic review was conducted to identify published randomised clinical trials that answered these questions. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. The resulting guideline addresses gastric bypass surgery, custom-made dual-block mandibular advancement devices, hypoglossal nerve stimulation, myofunctional therapy, maxillo-mandibular osteotomy, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors and positional therapy. These recommendations can be used to benchmark quality of care for people with OSA across Europe and to improve outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Humans; Mandibular Advancement; Occlusal Splints; Respiratory System; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive
PubMed: 34853097
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0200-2021 -
Anaesthesia Jun 2016Postoperative sore throat has a reported incidence of up to 62% following general anaesthesia. In adults undergoing tracheal intubation, female sex, younger age,... (Review)
Review
Postoperative sore throat has a reported incidence of up to 62% following general anaesthesia. In adults undergoing tracheal intubation, female sex, younger age, pre-existing lung disease, prolonged duration of anaesthesia and the presence of a blood-stained tracheal tube on extubation are associated with the greatest risk. Tracheal intubation without neuromuscular blockade, use of double-lumen tubes, as well as high tracheal tube cuff pressures may also increase the risk of postoperative sore throat. The expertise of the anaesthetist performing tracheal intubation appears to have no influence on the incidence in adults, although it may in children. In adults, the i-gel(™) supraglottic airway device results in a lower incidence of postoperative sore throat. Cuffed supraglottic airway devices should be inflated sufficiently to obtain an adequate seal and intracuff pressure should be monitored. Children with respiratory tract disease are at increased risk. The use of supraglottic airway devices, oral, rather than nasal, tracheal intubation and cuffed, rather than uncuffed, tracheal tubes have benefit in reducing the incidence of postoperative sore throat in children. Limiting both tracheal tube and supraglottic airway device cuff pressure may also reduce the incidence.
Topics: Airway Management; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Laryngeal Masks; Lidocaine; Pharyngitis; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27158989
DOI: 10.1111/anae.13438 -
PLoS Medicine Jul 2018Incomplete adherence to tuberculosis (TB) treatment increases the risk of delayed culture conversion with continued transmission in the community, as well as treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Incomplete adherence to tuberculosis (TB) treatment increases the risk of delayed culture conversion with continued transmission in the community, as well as treatment failure, relapse, and development or amplification of drug resistance. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of adherence interventions, including directly observed therapy (DOT), to determine which approaches lead to improved TB treatment outcomes.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We systematically reviewed Medline as well as the references of published review articles for relevant studies of adherence to multidrug treatment of both drug-susceptible and drug-resistant TB through February 3, 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as prospective and retrospective cohort studies (CSs) with an internal or external control group that evaluated any adherence intervention and conducted a meta-analysis of their impact on TB treatment outcomes. Our search identified 7,729 articles, of which 129 met the inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis. Seven adherence categories were identified, including DOT offered by different providers and at various locations, reminders and tracers, incentives and enablers, patient education, digital technologies (short message services [SMSs] via mobile phones and video-observed therapy [VOT]), staff education, and combinations of these interventions. When compared with DOT alone, self-administered therapy (SAT) was associated with lower rates of treatment success (CS: risk ratio [RR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.89; RCT: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.98), adherence (CS: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.93), and sputum smear conversion (RCT: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.98) as well as higher rates of development of drug resistance (CS: RR 4.19, 95% CI 2.34-7.49). When compared to DOT provided by healthcare providers, DOT provided by family members was associated with a lower rate of adherence (CS: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.94). DOT delivery in the community versus at the clinic was associated with a higher rate of treatment success (CS: RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15) and sputum conversion at the end of two months (CS: RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.08) as well as lower rates of treatment failure (CS: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.95) and loss to follow-up (CS: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98). Medication monitors improved adherence and treatment success and VOT was comparable with DOT. SMS reminders led to a higher treatment completion rate in one RCT and were associated with higher rates of cure and sputum conversion when used in combination with medication monitors. TB treatment outcomes improved when patient education, healthcare provider education, incentives and enablers, psychological interventions, reminders and tracers, or mobile digital technologies were employed. Our findings are limited by the heterogeneity of the included studies and lack of standardized research methodology on adherence interventions.
CONCLUSION
TB treatment outcomes are improved with the use of adherence interventions, such as patient education and counseling, incentives and enablers, psychological interventions, reminders and tracers, and digital health technologies. Trained healthcare providers as well as community delivery provides patient-centered DOT options that both enhance adherence and improve treatment outcomes as compared to unsupervised, SAT alone.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antitubercular Agents; Attitude of Health Personnel; Cell Phone; Child; Child, Preschool; Directly Observed Therapy; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health Personnel; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Medication Adherence; Observational Studies as Topic; Patient Education as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Self Care; Telemedicine; Text Messaging; Treatment Outcome; Tuberculosis; Video Recording
PubMed: 29969463
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002595 -
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) May 2021Recently, there has been an increase in the production of devices to monitor mental health and stress as means for expediting detection, and subsequent management of... (Review)
Review
Recently, there has been an increase in the production of devices to monitor mental health and stress as means for expediting detection, and subsequent management of these conditions. The objective of this review is to identify and critically appraise the most recent smart devices and wearable technologies used to identify depression, anxiety, and stress, and the physiological process(es) linked to their detection. The MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, and PsycINFO databases were used to identify studies which utilised smart devices and wearable technologies to detect or monitor anxiety, depression, or stress. The included articles that assessed stress and anxiety unanimously used heart rate variability (HRV) parameters for detection of anxiety and stress, with the latter better detected by HRV and electroencephalogram (EGG) together. Electrodermal activity was used in recent studies, with high accuracy for stress detection; however, with questionable reliability. Depression was found to be largely detected using specific EEG signatures; however, devices detecting depression using EEG are not currently available on the market. This systematic review highlights that average heart rate used by many commercially available smart devices is not as accurate in the detection of stress and anxiety compared with heart rate variability, electrodermal activity, and possibly respiratory rate.
Topics: Heart Rate; Mental Health; Monitoring, Physiologic; Reproducibility of Results; Wearable Electronic Devices
PubMed: 34065620
DOI: 10.3390/s21103461 -
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2022Heat-related illnesses, which range from heat exhaustion to heatstroke, affect thousands of individuals worldwide every year and are characterized by extreme... (Review)
Review
Heat-related illnesses, which range from heat exhaustion to heatstroke, affect thousands of individuals worldwide every year and are characterized by extreme hyperthermia with the core body temperature (CBT) usually > 40 °C, decline in physical and athletic performance, CNS dysfunction, and, eventually, multiorgan failure. The measurement of CBT has been shown to predict heat-related illness and its severity, but the current measurement methods are not practical for use in high acuity and high motion settings due to their invasive and obstructive nature or excessive costs. Noninvasive predictions of CBT using wearable technology and predictive algorithms offer the potential for continuous CBT monitoring and early intervention to prevent HRI in athletic, military, and intense work environments. Thus far, there has been a lack of peer-reviewed literature assessing the efficacy of wearable devices and predictive analytics to predict CBT to mitigate heat-related illness. This systematic review identified 20 studies representing a total of 25 distinct algorithms to predict the core body temperature using wearable technology. While a high accuracy in prediction was noted, with 17 out of 18 algorithms meeting the clinical validity standards. few algorithms incorporated individual and environmental data into their core body temperature prediction algorithms, despite the known impact of individual health and situational and environmental factors on CBT. Robust machine learning methods offer the ability to develop more accurate, reliable, and personalized CBT prediction algorithms using wearable devices by including additional data on user characteristics, workout intensity, and the surrounding environment. The integration and interoperability of CBT prediction algorithms with existing heat-related illness prevention and treatment tools, including heat indices such as the WBGT, athlete management systems, and electronic medical records, will further prevent HRI and increase the availability and speed of data access during critical heat events, improving the clinical decision-making process for athletic trainers and physicians, sports scientists, employers, and military officers.
Topics: Body Temperature; Heat Stress Disorders; Heat Stroke; Hot Temperature; Humans; Technology; Wearable Electronic Devices
PubMed: 36236737
DOI: 10.3390/s22197639 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Sep 2012Patients with diabetes mellitus need information about the effectiveness of innovations in insulin delivery and glucose monitoring. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with diabetes mellitus need information about the effectiveness of innovations in insulin delivery and glucose monitoring.
PURPOSE
To review how intensive insulin therapy (multiple daily injections [MDI] vs. rapid-acting analogue-based continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) or method of monitoring (self-monitoring of blood glucose [SMBG] vs. real-time continuous glucose monitoring [rt-CGM]) affects outcomes in types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through February 2012 without language restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION
33 randomized, controlled trials in children or adults that compared CSII with MDI (n=19), rt-CGM with SMBG (n=10), or sensor-augmented insulin pump use with MDI and SMBG (n=4).
DATA EXTRACTION
2 reviewers independently evaluated studies for eligibility and quality and serially abstracted data.
DATA SYNTHESIS
In randomized, controlled trials, MDI and CSII showed similar effects on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and severe hypoglycemia in children or adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus and adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus, HbA1c levels decreased more with CSII than with MDI, but 1 study heavily influenced these results. Compared with SMBG, rt-CGM achieved a lower HbA1c level (between-group difference of change, 0.26% [95% CI, 0.33% to 0.19%]) without any difference in severe hypoglycemia. Sensor-augmented insulin pump use decreased HbA1c levels more than MDI and SMBG did in persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus (between-group difference of change, 0.68% [CI, 0.81% to 0.54%]). Little evidence was available on other outcomes.
LIMITATION
Many studies were small, of short duration, and limited to white persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus.
CONCLUSION
Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and MDI have similar effects on glycemic control and hypoglycemia, except CSII has a favorable effect on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus. For glycemic control, rt-CGM is superior to SMBG and sensor-augmented insulin pumps are superior to MDI and SMBG without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Insulin Infusion Systems; Monitoring, Physiologic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 22777524
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00508 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide range of interventions have been proposed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on treatments for acne scars to better inform patients and their healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods of managing this condition. This review aimed to examine treatments for atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars, but we have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for treating acne scars.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to randomised controlled trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated participants (whether split-face or parallel arms) to any active intervention (or a combination) for treating acne scars. We excluded studies dealing only or mostly with keloid scars.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted data from each of the studies included in this review and evaluated the risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and arbitration supported by a method expert as required. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 trials with 789 adult participants aged 18 years or older. Twenty trials enrolled men and women, three trials enrolled only women and one trial enrolled only men. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. With regard to blinding we judged 17 studies to be at high risk of performance bias, because the participants and dermatologists were not blinded to the treatments administered or received; however, we judged all 24 trials to be at a low risk of detection bias for outcome assessment. We evaluated 14 comparisons of seven interventions and four combinations of interventions. Nine studies provided no usable data on our outcomes and did not contribute further to this review's results.For our outcome 'Participant-reported scar improvement' in one study fractional laser was more effective in producing scar improvement than non-fractional non-ablative laser at week 24 (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 12.84; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); fractional laser showed comparable scar improvement to fractional radiofrequency in one study at week eight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.68; n = 40; very low-quality evidence) and was comparable to combined chemical peeling with skin needling in a different study at week 48 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; n = 26; very low-quality evidence). In a further study chemical peeling showed comparable scar improvement to combined chemical peeling with skin needling at week 32 (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.75; n = 20; very low-quality evidence). Chemical peeling in one study showed comparable scar improvement to skin needling at week four (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; n = 27; very low-quality evidence). In another study, injectable fillers provided better scar improvement compared to placebo at week 24 (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; n = 147 moderate-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Serious adverse effects' in one study chemical peeling was not tolerable in 7/43 (16%) participants (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 90.14; n = 58; very low-quality evidence).For our secondary outcome 'Participant-reported short-term adverse events', all participants reported pain in the following studies: in one study comparing fractional laser to non-fractional non-ablative laser (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); in another study comparing fractional laser to combined peeling plus needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; n = 25; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling plus needling to chemical peeling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; n = 20; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling to skin needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; n = 27; very low-quality evidence); and also in a study comparing injectable filler and placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.10 to 11.10; n = 147; low-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Investigator-assessed short-term adverse events', fractional laser (6/32) was associated with a reduced risk of hyperpigmentation than non-fractional non-ablative laser (10/32) in one study (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); chemical peeling was associated with increased risk of hyperpigmentation (6/12) compared to skin needling (0/15) in one study (RR 16.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 258.36; n = 27; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the reported adverse events with injectable filler (17/97) compared to placebo (13/50) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; n = 147; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions for treating acne scars because of poor methodology, underpowered studies, lack of standardised improvement assessments, and different baseline variables.There is moderate-quality evidence that injectable filler might be effective for treating atrophic acne scars; however, no studies have assessed long-term effects, the longest follow-up being 48 weeks in one study only. Other studies included active comparators, but in the absence of studies that establish efficacy compared to placebo or sham interventions, it is possible that finding no evidence of difference between two active treatments could mean that neither approach works. The results of this review do not provide support for the first-line use of any intervention in the treatment of acne scars.Although our aim was to identify important gaps for further primary research, it might be that placebo and or sham trials are needed to establish whether any of the active treatments produce meaningful patient benefits over the long term.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adult; Atrophy; Catheter Ablation; Chemexfoliation; Cicatrix; Cosmetic Techniques; Dermal Fillers; Female; Humans; Hypertrophy; Laser Therapy; Male; Needles; Young Adult
PubMed: 27038134
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011946.pub2 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jan 2023The novel concept of immersive 3D augmented reality (AR) surgical navigation has recently been introduced in the medical field. This method allows surgeons to directly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The novel concept of immersive 3D augmented reality (AR) surgical navigation has recently been introduced in the medical field. This method allows surgeons to directly focus on the surgical objective without having to look at a separate monitor. In the dental field, the recently developed AR-assisted dental implant navigation system (AR navigation), which uses innovative image technology to directly visualize and track a presurgical plan over an actual surgical site, has attracted great interest.
OBJECTIVE
This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis study that aimed to assess the accuracy of dental implants placed by AR navigation and compare it with that of the widely used implant placement methods, including the freehand method (FH), template-based static guidance (TG), and conventional navigation (CN).
METHODS
Individual search strategies were used in PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to search for articles published until March 21, 2022. This study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database. Peer-reviewed journal articles evaluating the positional deviations of dental implants placed using AR-assisted implant navigation systems were included. Cohen d statistical power analysis was used to investigate the effect size estimate and CIs of standardized mean differences (SMDs) between data sets.
RESULTS
Among the 425 articles retrieved, 15 articles were considered eligible for narrative review, 8 articles were considered for single-arm meta-analysis, and 4 were included in a 2-arm meta-analysis. The mean lateral, global, depth, and angular deviations of the dental implant placed using AR navigation were 0.90 (95% CI 0.78-1.02) mm, 1.18 (95% CI 0.95-1.41) mm, 0.78 (95% CI 0.48-1.08) mm, and 3.96° (95% CI 3.45°-4.48°), respectively. The accuracy of AR navigation was significantly higher than that of the FH method (SMD=-1.01; 95% CI -1.47 to -0.55; P<.001) and CN method (SMD=-0.46; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.29; P<.001). However, the accuracies of the AR navigation and TG methods were similar (SMD=0.06; 95% CI -0.62 to 0.74; P=.73).
CONCLUSIONS
The positional deviations of AR-navigated implant placements were within the safety zone, suggesting clinically acceptable accuracy of the AR navigation method. Moreover, the accuracy of AR implant navigation was comparable with that of the highly recommended dental implant-guided surgery method, TG, and superior to that of the conventional FH and CN methods. This review highlights the possibility of using AR navigation as an effective and accurate immersive surgical guide for dental implant placement.
Topics: Humans; Augmented Reality; Dental Implants; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Surgeons; Technology
PubMed: 36598798
DOI: 10.2196/42040