Bailin Jiang1, Hui Ju, Ying Zhao, Lan Yao, Yi Feng. 1. From the Department of Anesthesiology (B.J., H.J., Y.Z., Y.F.), Peking University People's Hospital; and Peking University International Hospital (L.Y.), Beijing, China.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study compared the efficacy and efficiency of virtual reality simulation (VRS) with high-fidelity mannequin in the simulation-based training of fiberoptic bronchoscope manipulation in novices. METHODS:Forty-six anesthesia residents with no experience in fiberoptic intubation were divided into two groups: VRS (group VRS) and mannequin (group M). After a standard didactic teaching session, group VRS trained 25 times on VRS, whereas group M performed the same process on a mannequin. After training, participants' performance was assessed on a mannequin five consecutive times. Procedure times during training were recorded as pooled data to construct learning curves. Procedure time and global rating scale scores of manipulation ability were compared between groups, as well as changes in participants' confidence after training. RESULTS: Plateaus in the learning curves were achieved after 19 (95% confidence interval = 15-26) practice sessions in group VRS and 24 (95% confidence interval = 20-32) in group M. There was no significant difference in procedure time [13.7 (6.6) vs. 11.9 (4.1) seconds, t' = 1.101, P = 0.278] or global rating scale [3.9 (0.4) vs. 3.8 (0.4), t = 0.791, P = 0.433] between groups. Participants' confidence increased after training [group VRS: 1.8 (0.7) vs. 3.9 (0.8), t = 8.321, P < 0.001; group M = 2.0 (0.7) vs. 4.0 (0.6), t = 13.948, P < 0.001] but did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual reality simulation is more efficient than mannequin in simulation-based training of flexible fiberoptic manipulation in novices, but similar effects can be achieved in both modalities after adequate training.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: This study compared the efficacy and efficiency of virtual reality simulation (VRS) with high-fidelity mannequin in the simulation-based training of fiberoptic bronchoscope manipulation in novices. METHODS: Forty-six anesthesia residents with no experience in fiberoptic intubation were divided into two groups: VRS (group VRS) and mannequin (group M). After a standard didactic teaching session, group VRS trained 25 times on VRS, whereas group M performed the same process on a mannequin. After training, participants' performance was assessed on a mannequin five consecutive times. Procedure times during training were recorded as pooled data to construct learning curves. Procedure time and global rating scale scores of manipulation ability were compared between groups, as well as changes in participants' confidence after training. RESULTS: Plateaus in the learning curves were achieved after 19 (95% confidence interval = 15-26) practice sessions in group VRS and 24 (95% confidence interval = 20-32) in group M. There was no significant difference in procedure time [13.7 (6.6) vs. 11.9 (4.1) seconds, t' = 1.101, P = 0.278] or global rating scale [3.9 (0.4) vs. 3.8 (0.4), t = 0.791, P = 0.433] between groups. Participants' confidence increased after training [group VRS: 1.8 (0.7) vs. 3.9 (0.8), t = 8.321, P < 0.001; group M = 2.0 (0.7) vs. 4.0 (0.6), t = 13.948, P < 0.001] but did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual reality simulation is more efficient than mannequin in simulation-based training of flexible fiberoptic manipulation in novices, but similar effects can be achieved in both modalities after adequate training.
Authors: I Ahmad; K El-Boghdadly; R Bhagrath; I Hodzovic; A F McNarry; F Mir; E P O'Sullivan; A Patel; M Stacey; D Vaughan Journal: Anaesthesia Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 6.955