RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL COMPARING THE EFFICACY OF IMMERSIVE VIRTUAL REALITY AND TRADITIONAL PHYSICAL ARTHROSCOPY SIMULATORS IN ARTHROSCOPIC TRAINING
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Surgical simulation using virtual reality (VR) technology is a novel, risk-free modality for developing the technical skills of surgical trainees. This study aimed to compare the development of arthroscopic skills following training with an immersive VR arthroscopy simulator to a physical arthroscopy simulator. Eligible participants were randomized into one of four groups: VR3 (three VR training sessions), VR1 (one VR training session), physical simulator, and no training (Figure 1). Participants were medical students with no previous arthroscopy experience. Training metrics and testing performance were evaluated using the global rating scale (GRS) scoring system and standardized rater assessments. Qualitative questionnaires were administered to assess participant experiences and perceptions of the simulators. Out of 38 initial respondents, 29 participants met eligibility criteria and were randomized. The training metrics analysis showed that the VR3 training group exhibited significantly better performance over time compared to the VR1 group. Intragroup analysis within the VR3 group revealed improvements in precision, rotating, periscoping, and object tracking skills from first session to last session. The physical simulator group had significantly better GRS scores in terms of instrumental and camera dexterity compared to the no training group (Figure 2). No other significant differences were found among the four groups in all other components of the GRS. VR3 had a shorter task completion time compared to the VR1 and no training groups. Change in confidence levels did not vary significantly among the groups. The repeated use of the physical arthroscopy simulator was perceived to provide additional benefit and continued learning compared to the VR groups (p=0.039). Participants reported high levels of enjoyment, learning, and understanding across all groups. Strengths and limitations of both the IVR and physical simulators were identified based on participant feedback. The findings of this study suggest that non-anatomic VR and physical arthroscopy simulators provide similar training benefits, with physical arthroscopy simulators demonstrating slightly more favorable outcomes in some training metrics. However, VR, may be a viable option for arthroscopic training due to its cost-effectiveness and portability. These findings highlight the potential of VR in surgical education. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».