| Literature DB >> 34319473 |
Thomas C Edwards1,2, Arjun Patel3,4, Bartosz Szyszka3, Alexander W Coombs3, Alexander D Liddle3, Rakesh Kucheria4, Justin P Cobb3, Kartik Logishetty3,4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Immersive Virtual Reality (iVR) is a novel technology which can enhance surgical training in a virtual environment without supervision. However, it is untested for the training to select, assemble and deliver instrumentation in orthopaedic surgery-typically performed by scrub nurses. This study investigates the impact of an iVR curriculum on this facet of the technically demanding revision total knee arthroplasty.Entities:
Keywords: Patient safety; Revision total knee arthroplasty; Simulation; Virtual reality
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34319473 PMCID: PMC8317146 DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-04050-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg ISSN: 0936-8051 Impact factor: 3.067
Fig. 1A Participant performing the iVR training with motion-tracked headset and controllers B participants view of the simulated rTKA equipment through the iVR headset
Demographics and experience
| Variable | |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 33.3 (10.0, 27–58) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 7 (70%) |
| Female | 3 (30%) |
| Clinical experience (years) | 6.4 (7.0, 0.5–25) |
| Hand dominance | |
| Right | 10 |
| Left | 0 |
| Video game experience | |
| Yes | 3 (30%) |
| No | 7 (70%) |
| Previous VR experience | |
| Yes | 2 (20%) |
| No | 8 (80%) |
VR virtual reality, SD standard deviation
Fig. 2Bar graphs demonstrating qualitative feedback in participants self-reported ability, anxiety and confidence, both before and after iVR training relating to A identification and understanding what components are used for B assembly of components C sequence of steps during surgery. Error bars denote a 95% confidence interval, significant differences (p < 0.05) highlighted with an asterisk (*)
Fig. 3Column scatter graphs for iVR outcomes across the three unguided assessments—A operative time in minutes B assistive prompts C total errors committed D dominant hand motion in metres. The median is represented with the interquartile range. Individual data points labelled with participant identification number to the top right of the dot. Tukey outliers (data points 1.5 interquartile ranges above the 75th centile or below the 25th centile) demonstrated in red. For all outcomes, significant differences were detected between all of the assessment sessions (p < 0.05)
Inter-observer reliability of video-based analysis
| Variable | Inter-observer reliabilitya |
|---|---|
| Prompts | 1.00 (0.99–1.00) |
| Instrument selection error | 0.98 (0.96–0.99) |
| Instrument use error | 0.87 (0.74–0.93) |
| Total error | 0.98 (0.96–0.99) |
aIntraclass correlation co-efficient with 95% confidence interval in parentheses
Fig. 4Column scatter graph for the real-world assessments before the iVR training (left) and after (right). The median is represented with the interquartile range. Individual data points labelled with participant identification number to the top right of the dot. Tukey outliers (data points 1.5 interquartile ranges above the 75th centile or below the 25th centile) demonstrated in red. The difference between the two assessments was significant (p < 0.001)