Govert Veldhuijzen

142 Chapter 7 Patient satisfaction No differences were observed between the two groups for the patient satisfaction. All patients scored high satisfaction rates in the used scales (median score was of 9 out of 10 in both groups). The results of patient satisfaction were summarized in table 4. Table 4. Satisfaction results Control (non VR) (n=9) Intervention (VR) (n=10) P value Patient satisfaction* 9 [8;10] 9 [6.5;10] 0.905† NPS* 9 [8;10] 9 [7.75;10] 0.905† Willingness to return* 9 [7.5;10] 9 [6.75;10] 0.720† *Variables are denoted as median [inter quartile range]. † Mann-Whitney U test. Qualitative comments The majority (9/10) rated use of VR glasses as positive. Four patients indicated that they preferred to select the VR content themselves. Two patients complained of the quality of the movie and 1 patient indicated that the resolution of the VR movie was too low. The physician who performed the colonoscopy was able to communicate with all patients in the intervention group and did not experience any limitations of use of VR. DISCUSSION Our pilot study shows that it feasible to use VR distraction during colonoscopy as we observed complete patient acceptance of the device during all procedures. Procedural time was not prolonged as a result of our intervention. Comfort, pain, anxiety or patient satisfaction was not affected by VR, but patients reported a positive distracting effect of the VR glasses. This pilot study indicates that there are no obstacles to investigate VR glasses further in a larger sample of patients. Important to the design of subsequent trials from the endoscopist perspective is that the use of VR glasses did not interfere with the completion colonoscopy. Various studies found that visual and/or auditory distraction during endoscopic procedures reduces pain and improves satisfaction as a result of during endoscopic procedures. 13,15,18 In this pilot we were not able to identify these advantages for VR. This accords with two trials that used VR in burn wound victims and the authors point