For daily burn wound care and therapeutic physical therapy skin stretching procedures, powerful pain medications alone are often inadequate. This feasibility study provides the first evidence that entering an immersive virtual environment using very inexpensive (∼$400) wide field of view Oculus Rift Virtual Reality (VR) goggles can elicit a strong illusion of presence and reduce pain during VR. The patient was an 11-year-old male with severe electrical and flash burns on his head, shoulders, arms, and feet (36 percent total body surface area (TBSA), 27 percent TBSA were third-degree burns). He spent one 20-minute occupational therapy session with no VR, one with VR on day 2, and a final session with no VR on day 3. His rating of pain intensity during therapy dropped from severely painful during no VR to moderately painful during VR. Pain unpleasantness dropped from moderately unpleasant during no VR to mildly unpleasant during VR. He reported going "completely inside the computer generated world", and had more fun during VR. Results are consistent with a growing literature showing reductions in pain during VR. Although case studies are scientifically inconclusive by nature, these preliminary results suggest that the Oculus Rift VR goggles merit more attention as a potential treatment for acute procedural pain of burn patients. Availability of inexpensive but highly immersive VR goggles would significantly improve cost effectiveness and increase dissemination of VR pain distraction, making VR available to many more patients, potentially even at home, for pain control as well as a wide range of other VR therapy applications. This is the first clinical data on PubMed to show the use of Oculus Rift for any medical application.

Background: This is the first controlled study to explore whether adjunctive immersive virtual reality (VR) can reduce excessive pain of soldiers with combat-related burn injuries during wound debridement. Methods: Patients were US soldiers burned in combat attacks involving explosive devices in Iraq or Afghanistan. During the same wound care session using a within-subject experimental design, 12 patients received half of their severe burn wound cleaning procedure (∼6 minutes) with standard of care pharmacologies and half while in VR (treatment order randomized). Three 0 to 10 Graphic Rating Scale pain scores for each of the treatment conditions served as the primary variables. Results: Patients reported significantly less pain when distracted with VR. “Worst pain” (pain intensity) dropped from 6.25 of 10 to 4.50 of 10. “Pain unpleasantness” ratings dropped from “moderate” (6.25 of 10) to “mild” (2.83 of 10). “Time spent thinking about pain” dropped from 76% during no VR to 22% during VR. Patients rated “no VR” as “no fun at all” (<1 of 10) and rated VR as “pretty fun” (7.5 of 10). Follow-up analyses showed VR was especially effective for the six patients who scored 7 of 10 or higher (severe to excruciating) on the “worst pain” (pain intensity) ratings. Conclusions: These preliminary results provide the first evidence from a controlled study that adjunctive immersive VR reduced pain of patients with combat-related burn injuries during severe burn wound debridement. Pain reduction during VR was greatest in patients with the highest pain during no VR. These patients were the first to use a unique custom robot-like arm mounted VR goggle system.

Presurgical anxiety is very common and is often treated with sedatives. Minimizing or avoiding sedation reduces the risk of sedation-related adverse events. Reducing sedation can increase early cognitive recovery and reduce time to discharge after surgery. The current case study is the first to explore the use of interactive eye-tracked VR as a nonpharmacologic anxiolytic customized for physically immobilized presurgery patients. Method: A 44-year-old female patient presenting for gallbladder surgery participated. Using a within-subject repeated measures design (treatment order randomized), the participant received no VR during one portion of her preoperative wait and interactive eye-tracked virtual reality during an equivalent portion of time in the presurgery room. After each condition (no VR vs. VR), the participant provided subjective 0–10 ratings and state–trait short form Y anxiety measures of the amount of anxiety and fear she experienced during that condition. Results: As predicted, compared to treatment as usual (no VR), the patient reported having 67% lower presurgical anxiety during VR. She also experienced “strong fear” (8 out of 10) during no VR vs. “no fear” (0 out of 10) during VR. She reported a strong sense of presence during VR and zero nausea. She liked VR, she had fun during VR, and she recommended VR to future patients during pre-op. Interactive VR distraction with eye tracking was an effective nonpharmacologic technique for reducing anticipatory fear and anxiety prior to surgery. The results add to existing evidence that supports the use of VR in perioperative settings. VR technology has recently become affordable and more user friendly, increasing the potential for widespread dissemination into medical practice. Although case studies are scientifically inconclusive by nature, they help identify new directions for future larger, carefully controlled studies. VR sedation is a promising non-drug fear and anxiety management technique meriting further investigation.

Although most scald burn injuries involve children under six, because of the challenges of using head mounted displays with young children there is very little research exploring the use of VR in children under six. The current clinical pilot study measured the analgesic effectiveness of our new desktop VR system (with no VR helmet) in children under six during burn wound care (a within-subjects design with randomized treatment order). Between December 2021–April 2022, nine children with burn injuries (10 months to 5 years age, mean = 18 months) participated. The mean burn size was 10% Total Body Surface Area, range 2–22%. Using nurse’s ratings, VR significantly reduced children’s pain during burn wound care by 40% on the observational Faces, Legs, Activity, Crying, and Consolability (FLACC) pain scale. Specifically, non-parametric within-subject sign tests compared nurse’s ratings of the young patients’ pain during burn wound care using usual pain medications with no VR = 6.67, (SD = 2.45) vs. adjunctive Animal Rescue World VR (VR = 4.00, SD = 2.24, p < 0.01). The observational Procedure–Behavior Checklist (PBCL) nurse’s scale measured a 34% reduction in anxiety with VR as compared to pharmacologic treatment alone (p < 0.005). Similarly, when using single graphic rating scales the patients’ parents reported a significant 36% decrease in their child’s pain during VR (p < 0.05), a 38% (p < 0.005) decrease in their child’s anxiety during VR, and a significant increase in patients’ joy during VR. It can be concluded that during burn wound care with no distraction (traditional pain medications), children under 6 years old experienced severe pain during a 10 min burn wound cleaning session. During burn wound care combining desktop virtual reality and traditional pain medications, the same pediatric patients experienced only mild pain during burn wound cleaning/debridement. VR significantly reduced the children’s pain and anxiety during burn wound care.