Skip to main content
. 2022 Aug 12;9:916443. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.916443

Table 2.

Results of direct comparison for preoperative preparation of LC with VR MRCP and conventional MRCP.

Overall Conventional MRPC VR MRCP p
n 13 5 8
Age (years) (median [IQR]) 31 [30, 34] 31 [30, 32] 32.50 [29.75, 34.50] 0.941
Year of training (median [IQR]) 5 [2, 6] 5 [4, 5] 5.5 [2, 6.25] 0.599
Number of LC performed (median [IQR]) 23 [8, 33] 23 [7, 33] 26 [8, 42.75] 0.66
Predicted difficulty (median [IQR]) 4 [2, 7] 3 [1, 4] 4.5 [3.5, 7.25] 0.208
Previous surgery = yes (%) 4 (30.8) 2 (40) 2 (25) 1
Time for preparation (min) (median [IQR]) 6 [5, 8] 5 [4, 7] 6.5 [5.75, 8.5] 0.267
Planned operative time (min) (median [IQR]) 80 [70, 90] 90 [75, 90] 75 [67.5, 90] 0.225
Nassar grade (%) 0.152
 1 2 (17) 2 (40) 0 (0)
 2 5 (41) 2 (40) 3 (43)
 3 5 (41) 1 (20) 4 (57)
Operative time (min) (median [IQR]) 78 [60, 120] 66 [60, 70] 90.5 [72.5, 120] 0.464
GOALS self assessment (median [IQR]) 17 [15, 20] 16 [15, 20] 17.5 [14.75, 21.25] 0.659
GOALS examiner assessment (median [IQR]) 16 [12, 22] 11 [11, 18] 16 [13, 22.25] 0.27
In-hospital complications = n 0 0 0 NA
Length of stay (days) (median [IQR]) 2 [2, 2] 2 [2, 2] 2 [2, 2] 0.429

Median answers and interquartile ranges on the Likert scale, as well as percentage of positive responses (rating of 4 or 5 in positive and 1 or 2 in inversely formulated questions).

Abbreviations: CVS, critical view of safety; min, minutes.