INTRODUCTION:Immersive virtual reality (VR) laparoscopy simulation connects VR simulation with head-mounted displays to increase presence during VR training. The goal of the present study was the comparison of 2 different surroundings according to performance and users' preference. METHODS: With a custom immersive virtual reality laparoscopy simulator, an artificially created VR operating room (AVR) and a highly immersive VR operating room (IVR) were compared. Participants (n = 30) performed 3 tasks (peg transfer, fine dissection, and cholecystectomy) in AVR and IVR in a crossover study design. RESULTS: No overall difference in virtual laparoscopic performance was obtained when comparing results from AVR with IVR. Most participants preferred the IVR surrounding (n = 24). Experienced participants (n = 10) performed significantly better than novices (n = 10) in all tasks regardless of the surrounding ( P < .05). Participants with limited experience (n = 10) showed differing results. Presence, immersion, and exhilaration were significantly higher in IVR. Two thirds assumed that IVR would have a positive influence on their laparoscopic simulator use. CONCLUSION: This first study comparing AVR and IVR did not reveal differences in virtual laparoscopic performance. IVR is considered the more realistic surrounding and is therefore preferred by the participants.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Immersive virtual reality (VR) laparoscopy simulation connects VR simulation with head-mounted displays to increase presence during VR training. The goal of the present study was the comparison of 2 different surroundings according to performance and users' preference. METHODS: With a custom immersive virtual reality laparoscopy simulator, an artificially created VR operating room (AVR) and a highly immersive VR operating room (IVR) were compared. Participants (n = 30) performed 3 tasks (peg transfer, fine dissection, and cholecystectomy) in AVR and IVR in a crossover study design. RESULTS: No overall difference in virtual laparoscopic performance was obtained when comparing results from AVR with IVR. Most participants preferred the IVR surrounding (n = 24). Experienced participants (n = 10) performed significantly better than novices (n = 10) in all tasks regardless of the surrounding ( P < .05). Participants with limited experience (n = 10) showed differing results. Presence, immersion, and exhilaration were significantly higher in IVR. Two thirds assumed that IVR would have a positive influence on their laparoscopic simulator use. CONCLUSION: This first study comparing AVR and IVR did not reveal differences in virtual laparoscopic performance. IVR is considered the more realistic surrounding and is therefore preferred by the participants.