INTRODUCTION: The Chief Medical Officer's 2008 annual report highlighted the importance of simulation in medical training. Simulator development has focused on increasing authenticity and fidelity. Development has not necessarily been guided by evidence for educational improvement. On reviewing 34 years of literature, Issenberg et al identified ten features of high-fidelity medical simulators that facilitate learning. This study compares cadaveric temporal bone (CTB) simulation with the Voxel-Man TempoSurg (VT) virtual reality simulator in addressing these features. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was designed comparing the VT with CTB. Fourteen trainees and six consultants completed the questionnaire after using the simulator. RESULTS: The VT is better at allowing repetitive practice, ease of control of difficulty, and capturing clinical and pathological variation. The VT is as good as CTB in curriculum integration, allowing multiple learning strategies, providing a controlled environment, individualising learning and defining benchmarks. It appears worse with regards to face validity and feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual reality simulation and CTB have features that allow effective learning. Some of these are common to both, in some CTB is better and in others virtual reality is better. Virtual reality could be a significant mode of learning supplementary to CTB and experience in the operating theatre.
INTRODUCTION: The Chief Medical Officer's 2008 annual report highlighted the importance of simulation in medical training. Simulator development has focused on increasing authenticity and fidelity. Development has not necessarily been guided by evidence for educational improvement. On reviewing 34 years of literature, Issenberg et al identified ten features of high-fidelity medical simulators that facilitate learning. This study compares cadaveric temporal bone (CTB) simulation with the Voxel-Man TempoSurg (VT) virtual reality simulator in addressing these features. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was designed comparing the VT with CTB. Fourteen trainees and six consultants completed the questionnaire after using the simulator. RESULTS: The VT is better at allowing repetitive practice, ease of control of difficulty, and capturing clinical and pathological variation. The VT is as good as CTB in curriculum integration, allowing multiple learning strategies, providing a controlled environment, individualising learning and defining benchmarks. It appears worse with regards to face validity and feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual reality simulation and CTB have features that allow effective learning. Some of these are common to both, in some CTB is better and in others virtual reality is better. Virtual reality could be a significant mode of learning supplementary to CTB and experience in the operating theatre.