| Literature DB >> 35433825 |
B M Zeeshan Hameed1,2,3, Shraddha Somani4, Etienne Xavier Keller5, R Balamanigandan6, Satyasundara Mahapatra7, Amelia Pietropaolo2,8, Şenol Tonyali9, Patrick Juliebø-Jones10,11, Nithesh Naik3,12, Dilip Mishra13, Sarvesh Kumar14, Piotr Chlosta15, Bhaskar K Somani2,8.
Abstract
The integration of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) in urological practices and medical education has led to modern training systems that are cost-effective and with an increased expectation toward surgical performance and outcomes. VR aids the user in interacting with the virtual environment realistically by providing a three-dimensional (3D) view of the structures inside the body with high-level precision. AR enhances the real environment around users by integrating experience with virtual information over physical models and objects, which in turn has improved understanding of physiological mechanisms and anatomical structures. MR is an immersive technology that provides virtual content to interact with real elements. The field of urolithiasis has adapted the technological advancements, newer instruments, and methods to perform endourologic treatment procedures. This mini-review discusses the applications of Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality in endourology and urolithiasis.Entities:
Keywords: augmented reality; endourology; mixed reality; urolithiasis (urinary stones); virtual reality
Year: 2022 PMID: 35433825 PMCID: PMC9010500 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.866946
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Surg ISSN: 2296-875X
Figure 1Differentiation of immersive experience (Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality) medical simulation tools.
Summary of studies related to the application of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) in endourology and urolithiasis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mishra et al. ( | Validity and performance testing of virtual reality-based training for PCA | PERC Mentor | To test the varying validity of VR training for PCA −56 participants | Beginners with PERC Mentor training showed statistically significant improvement in the reduction of total surgical time during PCA |
| Participants fully evaluated and completed the process −24 participants | ||||
| Two cohorts: 15 beginners and 9 experts | ||||
| Five beginners were trained on pigs before PERC Mentor training | ||||
| Matsumoto et al. ( | Testing and performance comparison Symbionix model versus high fidelity ureteroscopy guide model | Uro Mentor | Sixteen residents in urology were evaluated on their competence to execute various tasks on a VR simulator | Senior residents scored higher (statistically significant) and overall took less time to complete the task in comparison to the junior residents |
| The evaluation was based on a global rating scale, and a Pass/Fail rating to evaluate the subject's performance | The tool is good to assess the skills of surgical residents | |||
| Raison et al. ( | Skill assessment of urology postgraduate trainees in percutaneous renal access (PCA) | PERC Mentor | Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) to study the impact of previous percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) | The postgraduate trainees with previous experience in PCNL performed significantly better and faster |
| Knudsen et al. ( | Evaluate and establish face, content and construct validation of the PERC Mentor simulator | PERC Mentor | Total 63 participants were divided into two groups: (a) Intervention group (underwent two 30-min training sessions on the simulator) (b) Control group (no further training) | Intervention group participants had improved and better performance |
| Nayahangan et al. ( | Integration of urological procedures into simulation-based training for resident trainees | – | The Delphi method was used to conduct a national needs assessment | The qualified experts have chosen in three rounds created and developed a simulation-based training program for the new urologists |
| The study involved a total of 56 experts with significant roles in urology education | ||||
| Aydin et al. ( | Evaluating current training methods and soliciting feedback on the potential role of AR simulation in urological training | – | A cross-sectional survey containing three sections: (a) Introduction (b) Technical skills in urology (c) Non-technical skills in urology | Both trainees and specialists advocate simulation, as the solution for safe and effective urological procedural training |
| Hu et al. ( | Comparison of post-training ureteroscopy and cystoscopy competency | Uro-scopic trainer | The study involved 36 participants divided into three groups, was assessed on the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scale: (a) Trained with the transparent simulator (b) Trained with the non-transparent simulator (c) Trained with verbal instructions | Students improved their ureteroscopy and cystoscopy proficiency with simulator training |
| Unique transparent anatomic simulator vs. no simulator training | Transparent simulators were more successful than other methods | |||
| Cai et al. ( | Investigating the effectiveness of VR simulator training in the treatment of kidney stones using retrograde flexible ureteroscopy | Uromentor | Participants underwent 4-h training and practice sessions on VR simulators | Significant improvement ( |
| The participants were assessed on procedure time, techniques, and ability to perform specific tasks | ||||
| Zhang et al. ( | Validating the use of PERC Mentor in percutaneous renal access training | PERC mentor | Total participants −21 urologists | Participants who had simulation-based training performed considerably faster |
| The instructional video was shown, then the PERC Mentor was used to conduct percutaneous renal access | VR simulator offers high-quality training to accurately assess trainees' abilities in fluoroscopy-guided PCA | |||
| Participants were judged based on the global rating scale |