Literature DB >> 31187262

Is actual surgical experience reflected in virtual reality simulation surgery for a femoral neck fracture?

Yasuhiro Homma1, Atsuhiko Mogami2, Tomonori Baba3, Kiyohito Naito3, Taiji Watari3, Osamu Obayashi2, Kazuo Kaneko3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: A virtual reality simulator developed for orthopaedic and trauma surgical training has been introduced. However, it is unclear whether the experiences of actual surgery are reflected in virtual reality simulation surgery (VRSS) using a simulator. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the results in VRSS differ between a trauma expert and a trauma novice.
METHODS: In Group A (expert), there are ten orthopaedic trauma surgeons and in Group B (novice) ten residents within 2 years after medical school graduation. VRSS for a femoral neck fracture using Hansson hook-pins (Test 1) and Hansson twin hook plate (Test 2) was performed. The parameters evaluated were total procedure time (s), fluoroscopy time (s), number of times X-ray was used (defined by the number of times the foot pedal was used), number of retries in guide placement, and final implant position.
RESULTS: In Test 1, the averages of four parameters (distance to posterior cortex (p = 0.009), distal pin distance above lesser trochanter (p = 0.015), distal pin hook angular error (p = 0.004), and distal pin tip distance to centre (lateral) (p = 0.015)) were significantly different between Groups A and B. In Test 2, no parameters in a mean were significantly different between groups, but seven parameters in a variance (guide wire distance to joint surface (p = 0.0191), twin hook length outside barrel (p = 0.011), twin hook tip distance to centre (lateral) (p = 0.042), twin hook distance to centre of lateral cortex (lateral) (p = 0.016), plate end alignment error (lateral) (p = 0.027), guide wire angle with lateral cortex (front) (p = 0.024), and 3.2-mm drill outside cortex (p = 0.000)) were significantly different between groups. In Test 1, Group B showed significantly longer fluoroscopy time than Group A (p = 0.044). In Test 2, Group B showed significantly fewer instances of X-ray use than Group A (p = 0.046).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that the experiences of actual surgery are reflected in the result of VRSS using the simulator.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Femoral neck fracture; Simulation surgery; Virtual reality

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31187262     DOI: 10.1007/s00590-019-02465-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol        ISSN: 1633-8065


  24 in total

1.  Arthroscopy skills development with a surgical simulator: a comparative study in orthopaedic surgery residents.

Authors:  Brian J Rebolledo; Jennifer Hammann-Scala; Alejandro Leali; Anil S Ranawat
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 6.202

2.  Malpractice litigation following spine surgery.

Authors:  Alan H Daniels; Roy Ruttiman; Adam E M Eltorai; J Mason DePasse; Bielinsky A Brea; Mark A Palumbo
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2017-07-21

3.  Testing the Construct Validity of a Virtual Reality Hip Arthroscopy Simulator.

Authors:  Vikas Khanduja; John E Lawrence; Emmanuel Audenaert
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 4.772

4.  Influence of surgeon's experience and supervision on re-operation rate after hip fracture surgery.

Authors:  Henrik Palm; Steffen Jacobsen; Michael Krasheninnikoff; Nicolai Bang Foss; Henrik Kehlet; Peter Gebuhr
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2006-10-17       Impact factor: 2.586

5.  Medical Malpractice in Orthopedic Surgery: A Westlaw-Based Demographic Analysis.

Authors:  Nicole D Rynecki; Daniel Coban; Owen Gantz; Raghav Gupta; Varun Ayyaswami; Arpan V Prabhu; Jeremy Ruskin; Sheldon S Lin; Kathleen S Beebe
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 1.390

Review 6.  Virtual reality training in laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review & meta-analysis.

Authors:  Medhat Alaker; Greg R Wynn; Tan Arulampalam
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 6.071

7.  Validation of the updated ArthroS simulator: face and construct validity of a passive haptic virtual reality simulator with novel performance metrics.

Authors:  Patrick Garfjeld Roberts; Paul Guyver; Mathew Baldwin; Kash Akhtar; Abtin Alvand; Andrew J Price; Jonathan L Rees
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-04-16       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Breast cancer mortality among female radiologic technologists in the United States.

Authors:  Aparna K Mohan; Michael Hauptmann; Martha S Linet; Elaine Ron; Jay H Lubin; D Michal Freedman; Bruce H Alexander; John D Boice; Michele Morin Doody; Genevieve M Matanoski
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-06-19       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  A simulation-based training system for hip fracture fixation for use within the hospital environment.

Authors:  P Blyth; N S Stott; I A Anderson
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2007-07-19       Impact factor: 2.586

10.  No Variation in Patient Care Outcomes After Implementation of Resident Shift Work Duty Hour Limitations and a Hospitalist Model System.

Authors:  John M Hollier; Stephen D Wilson
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  2016-07-09       Impact factor: 1.852

View more
  2 in total

1.  Factors Associated With the Accuracy of Depth Gauge Measurements.

Authors:  Pengcheng Liu; Joanna Xi Xiao; Chen Zhao; Xiaodong Li; Guantong Sun; Fei Yang; Xiaoqing Wang
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-01-13

2.  A virtual reality simulator for training the surgical reduction of patient-specific supracondylar humerus fractures.

Authors:  José Negrillo-Cárdenas; Juan-Roberto Jiménez-Pérez; Joaquim Madeira; Francisco R Feito
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2021-08-07       Impact factor: 2.924

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.