Improved arthroscopic-related skill with virtual-reality training in inexperienced surgeon .
This study has been identified as potentially high impact.
OE's AI-driven High Impact metric estimates the influence a paper is likely to have by integrating signals from both the journal in which it is published and the scientific content of the article itself.
Developed using state-of-the-art natural language processing, the OE High Impact model more accurately predicts a study's future citation performance than journal impact factor alone.
This enables earlier recognition of clinically meaningful research and helps readers focus on articles most likely to shape future practice.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(2):86 Acta Orthop. 2011 Feb;82(1):90-5. Epub 2011 Feb 121 orthopaedic surgeons participated in this study. 14 inexperienced surgeons were randomized to undergo virtual reality (VR) training for shoulder arthroscopy or no training, while 7 experienced surgeons acted as controls. The primary outcomes were 5-parameters based on the VR unit. Results indicated the inexperienced intervention group showed improvement in arthroscopic skills (based on the VR) unit from the first testing period to the second testing period. The experienced surgeons demonstrated comparable outcomes between both testing periods, while the inexperienced control group demonstrated large variations in the outcomes. Further studies are required to determine the transferability of skills developed from the VR unit into the operating theatre.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Yes = 1
Uncertain = 0.5
Not Relevant = 0
No = 0
The Reporting Criteria Assessment evaluates the transparency with which authors report the methodological and trial characteristics of the trial within the publication. The assessment is divided into five categories which are presented below.
2/4
Randomization
3/4
Outcome Measurements
0/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
3/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
The Fragility Index is a tool that aids in the interpretation of significant findings, providing a measure of strength for a result. The Fragility Index represents the number of consecutive events that need to be added to a dichotomous outcome to make the finding no longer significant. A small number represents a weaker finding and a large number represents a stronger finding.
Why was this study needed now?
Previous studies have reported a correlation in performance with virtual reality (VR) training and arthroscopic skills. VR training units may improve an individual's ability to perform invasive surgical techniques. However, no studies have looked at inexperienced orthopaedic surgeon's development in arthroscopic skills with a VR training unit compared to experienced orthopaedic surgeons.
What was the principal research question?
What are the outcomes in arthroscopic skills development when inexperienced orthopaedic surgeons undergo virtual reality (VR) training (for shoulder arthroscopy) compared to experienced surgeons who regularly perform arthroscopic surgery, or compared to inexperienced surgeons who do not receive any VR training?
- The inexperienced intervention group saw a reduction in mean arthroscopy time from 720 (SD 239) seconds to 223 (SD 114) seconds (p=0.03 compared to the inexperienced control group).
- The inexperienced intervention group had a reduction in camera distance traveled from 367 (SD 151) cm to 84 (SD 44) cm (p=0.02 compared to the inexperienced control group).
- The intervention group had a significantly reduced depth of collision. Number of collisions and distance traveled by probe were also improved (although non-statistically significant).
- The intervention group showed an improvement in reduced collisions (highest number of collisions from the first test out of all groups, to the lowest number of collisions by the second test), but the improvement was not significant (p=0.07). The number of collisions increased in both control groups from the first to second testing.
What should I remember most?
The intervention group showed great improvements on the 5 tested parameters from the first to second testing period. The experienced control group had comparable results, and the inexperienced control group had large intra- and interpersonal variation. Virtual reality (VR) training units for arthroscopic surgery may help inexperienced surgeons develop basic navigation skills required in arthroscopic surgery procedures.
How will this affect the care of my patients?
Further studies should be performed to determine the transferability of skills from the virtual reality (VR) training unit to the operating theater.
DISCLAIMER
This content found on this page is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you require medical treatment, always seek the advice of your physician or go to your nearest emergency department. The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the individuals on the content found on this page do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of OrthoEvidence.