Orthopaedic sport medicine surgeons and fellows value immersive virtual reality for improving surgical training, procedural planning, and distance learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Overall, the potential utility of immersive virtual reality (iVR) technology in orthopaedic surgery is promising. The attitudes of medical students and surgical trainees on virtual reality simulated surgical training have been overwhelmingly positive. However, further research and understanding of the attitudes of practicing orthopaedic surgeons and fellows are needed to appreciate its benefits for clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to establish the face validity of iVR technology by assessing the attitudes of Canadian orthopaedic surgeons on the value of iVR for surgical training, clinical practice, and distance learning. METHODS: Forty-three orthopaedic surgeons and fellows attended an iVR demonstration at an annual orthopaedic meeting. The view and audio from the lead headset were cast to a large screen so the audience could follow the procedure in real time. Immediately after the presentation, the audience members were asked to complete a paper questionnaire assessing their perceptions and attitudes toward iVR for use in orthopaedic learning, clinical practice and distance education and mentoring. RESULTS: iVR was perceived to be valuable for the field of orthopaedic surgery providing face validity for the technology. All 13 questions were rated with mean Likert scores of five or greater, indicating a positive observed value for all 13 questions. The respondents indicated that iVR had value (score of 5 or greater) in each questionnaire domain, with agreement ranging from 78 to 98% for teaching and learning, 66-97% for clinical practice, and 88-100% for distance education and mentoring questions. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that a group of Canadian sport medicine orthopaedic surgeons and fellows had favourable attitudes toward, and perceived that iVR has value in, orthopaedic surgical training, clinical practice, and distance learning and mentorship. The potential for utilizing iVR technology for distance learning, mentorship and global education appears promising. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".