12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of Immersive Virtual Reality on Orthopedic Surgical Skills and Knowledge Acquisition Among Senior Surgical Residents : A Randomized Clinical Trial

      research-article
      , MD 1 , , MD, MSc 2 , , MD, MSc 3 , , MD 3 , , BSc 3 , , MD 4 , 5 , , MD, MBA, MSc 1 ,
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What is the quantifiable skill and knowledge transfer for surgical trainees using immersive virtual reality to learn both pathology recognition and complex procedural skills?

          Findings

          In this randomized clinical trial of 18 senior orthopedic surgery residents, those trained using immersive virtual reality demonstrated significant improvements in knowledge and procedural metrics compared with a control group receiving technical video instruction. A transfer effectiveness ratio of 0.79 was demonstrated, indicating that immersive virtual reality substituted for 47.4 minutes of equivalent real operating room training.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that immersive virtual reality may play a significant role in the future of procedural training, supplementing and perhaps augmenting traditional teaching and effectively reducing early surgical learning curves.

          Abstract

          This randomized clinical trial evaluates whether immersive virtual reality improves learning effectiveness among orthopedic surgery residents performing reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Video learning prior to surgery is common practice for trainees and surgeons, and immersive virtual reality (IVR) simulators are of increasing interest for surgical training. The training effectiveness of IVR compared with video training in complex skill acquisition should be studied.

          Objectives

          To evaluate whether IVR improves learning effectiveness for surgical trainees and to validate a VR rating scale through correlation to real-world performance.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This block randomized, intervention-controlled clinical trial included senior (ie, postgraduate year 4 and 5) orthopedic surgery residents from multiple institutions in Canada during a single training course. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Data were collected from January 30 to February 1, 2020.

          Intervention

          An IVR training platform providing a case-based module for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for advanced rotator cuff tear arthropathy. Participants were permitted to repeat the module indefinitely.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome measure was a validated performance metric for both the intervention and control groups (Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills [OSATS]). Secondary measures included transfer of training (ToT), transfer effectiveness ratio (TER), and cost-effectiveness (CER) ratios of IVR training compared with control. Additional secondary measures included IVR performance metrics measured on a novel rating scale compared with real-world performance.

          Results

          A total of 18 senior surgical residents participated; 9 (50%) were randomized to the IVR group and 9 (50%) to the control group. Participant demographic characteristics were not different for age (mean [SD] age: IVR group, 31.1 [2.8] years; control group, 31.0 [2.7] years), gender (IVR group, 8 [89%] men; control group, 6 [67%] men), surgical experience (mean [SD] experience with RSA: IVR group, 3.3 [0.9]; control group, 3.2 [0.4]), or prior simulator use (had experience: IVR group 6 [67%]; control group, 4 [44%]). The IVR group completed training 387% faster considering a single repetition (mean [SD] time for IVR group: 4.1 [2.5] minutes; mean [SD] time for control group: 16.1 [2.6] minutes; difference, 12.0 minutes; 95% CI, 8.8-14.0 minutes; P < .001). The IVR group had significantly better mean (SD) OSATS scores than the control group (15.9 [2.5] vs 9.4 [3.2]; difference, 6.9; 95% CI, 3.3-9.7; P < .001). The IVR group also demonstrated higher mean (SD) verbal questioning scores (4.1 [1.0] vs 2.2 [1.7]; difference, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.1-3.3; P = .03). The IVR score (ie, Precision Score) had a strong correlation to real-world OSATS scores ( r = 0.74) and final implant position ( r = 0.73). The ToT was 59.4%, based on the OSATS score. The TER was 0.79, and the system was 34 times more cost-effective than control, based on CER.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this study, surgical training with IVR demonstrated superior learning efficiency, knowledge, and skill transfer. The TER of 0.79 substituted for 47.4 minutes of operating room time when IVR was used for 60 minutes.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04404010

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents.

          The technical skill of surgical trainees is not well assessed. This study aimed (1) to compare the reliability of three scoring systems, (2) to compare live and bench formats and (3) to assess construct validity of a test of operative skill. Parallel examinations of operative skill, one using live animals and one using simulations, were developed. Performance was graded using operation-specific checklists, detailed global rating forms and pass/fail judgements. Twenty surgical residents each took both formats. Disattenuated correlations between live and bench scores were high (0.69-0.72). Mean interrater reliability across stations ranged from 0.64 to 0.72. Internal consistency was moderate to high (alpha: 0.61-0.74) for the live format using the checklist and for live and bench formats using global ratings. Global ratings discriminated between resident levels for both formats (bench: F(2,17) = 4.45, P < 0.05; live: F(2,17) = 3.55, P < 0.05), checklists did not. This preliminary study suggests that the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill can reliably and validly assess surgical skills. Global ratings are a better method of assessment than task-specific checklists. Bench model simulation gives equivalent results to use of live animals for this test format.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff. Results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders.

            We reviewed 80 shoulders (77 patients) at a mean follow-up of 44 months after insertion of a Grammont inverted shoulder prosthesis. Three implants had failed and had been revised. The mean Constant score had increased from 22.6 points pre-operatively to 65.6 points at review. In 96% of these shoulders there was no or only minimal pain. The mean active forward elevation increased from 73 degrees to 138 degrees. The integrity of teres minor is essential for the recovery of external rotation and significantly influenced the Constant score. Five cases of aseptic loosening of the glenoid and seven of dissociation of the glenoid component were noted. This study confirms the promising early results obtained with the inverted prosthesis in the treatment of a cuff-tear arthropathy. It should be considered in the treatment of osteoarthritis with a massive tear of the cuff but should be reserved for elderly patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Understanding Costs of Care in the Operating Room

              Importance Increasing value requires improving quality or decreasing costs. In surgery, estimates for the cost of 1 minute of operating room (OR) time vary widely. No benchmark exists for the cost of OR time, nor has there been a comprehensive assessment of what contributes to OR cost. Objectives To calculate the cost of 1 minute of OR time, assess cost by setting and facility characteristics, and ascertain the proportion of costs that are direct and indirect. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis examined annual financial disclosure documents from all comparable short-term general and specialty care hospitals in California from fiscal year (FY) 2005 to FY2014 (N = 3044; FY2014, n = 302). The analysis focused on 2 revenue centers: (1) surgery and recovery and (2) ambulatory surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures Mean cost of 1 minute of OR time, stratified by setting (inpatient vs ambulatory), teaching status, and hospital ownership. The proportion of cost attributable to indirect and direct expenses was identified; direct expenses were further divided into salary, benefits, supplies, and other direct expenses. Results In FY2014, a total of 175 of 302 facilities (57.9%) were not for profit, 78 (25.8%) were for profit, and 49 (16.2%) were government owned. Thirty facilities (9.9%) were teaching hospitals. The mean (SD) cost for 1 minute of OR time across California hospitals was $37.45 ($16.04) in the inpatient setting and $36.14 ($19.53) in the ambulatory setting ( P  = .65). There were no differences in mean expenditures when stratifying by ownership or teaching status except that teaching hospitals had lower mean (SD) expenditures than nonteaching hospitals in the inpatient setting ($29.88 [$9.06] vs $38.29 [$16.43]; P  = .006). Direct expenses accounted for 54.6% of total expenses ($20.40 of $37.37) in the inpatient setting and 59.1% of total expenses ($20.90 of $35.39) in the ambulatory setting. Wages and benefits accounted for approximately two-thirds of direct expenses (inpatient, $14.00 of $20.40; ambulatory, $14.35 of $20.90), with nonbillable supplies accounting for less than 10% of total expenses (inpatient, $2.55 of $37.37; ambulatory, $3.33 of $35.39). From FY2005 to FY2014, expenses in the OR have increased faster than the consumer price index and medical consumer price index. Teaching hospitals had slower growth in costs than nonteaching hospitals. Over time, the proportion of expenses dedicated to indirect costs has increased, while the proportion attributable to salary and supplies has decreased. Conclusions and Relevance The mean cost of OR time is $36 to $37 per minute, using financial data from California’s short-term general and specialty hospitals in FY2014. These statewide data provide a generalizable benchmark for the value of OR time. Furthermore, understanding the composition of costs will allow those interested in value improvement to identify high-yield targets. This cross-sectional analysis of annual financial disclosure documents calculates the cost of 1 minute of operating room time, assesses cost by setting and facility characteristics, and ascertains the proportion of costs that are direct and indirect. Questions What is the cost of 1 minute of operating room time, and what contributes to this cost? Findings In this cross-sectional analysis, the mean cost of operating room time in fiscal year 2014 for California’s acute care hospitals was $36 to $37 per minute; $20 to $21 of this amount is direct cost, with $13 to $14 attributable to wages and benefits and $2.50 to $3.50 attributable to surgical supplies. Meaning These numbers are the first standardized estimates of operating room cost; understanding the composition of costs will allow those interested in value improvement to identify high-yield targets.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                28 December 2020
                December 2020
                28 December 2020
                : 3
                : 12
                : e2031217
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
                [2 ]Section of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [3 ]Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Center, Western University Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, Ontario, Canada
                [5 ]Canadian Shoulder Elbow Society, Canadian Orthopaedic Association, Westmount, Quebec, Canada
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: October 24, 2020.
                Published: December 28, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.31217
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Lohre R et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Danny P. Goel, MD, MBA, MSc, Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, 106-3825 Sunset St, Burnaby, BC V5G1T4, Canada ( danny.goel@ 123456ubc.ca ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Lohre and Ms McIlquham had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Lohre, Bois, Pollock, Athwal, Goel.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Lohre, Bois, Pollock, Lapner, McIlquham.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Lohre, Lapner, McIlquham.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Lohre, Bois, Pollock, Lapner, Athwal, Goel.
                Statistical analysis: Lohre.
                Obtained funding: Lohre, Pollock, Goel.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Bois, Pollock, Lapner, McIlquham, Athwal, Goel.
                Supervision: Lapner, Athwal.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Athwal reported having equity in PrecisionOS and receiving royalties from Wright Medical during the conduct of the study as well as receiving royalties from Exactech and Conmed and having equity in Reach Orthopedics outside the submitted work. Dr Goel reported having equity in PrecisionOS as a founder and chief executive officer during the conduct of the study and receiving salary from PrecisionOS during the study, but no additional funds were providing for performing the study. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was funded by the Canadian Shoulder and Elbow Society (CSES) and PrecisionOS.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.
                Additional Contributions: The authors would like to acknowledge and thank all members of the CSES for their contributions to this study.
                Article
                zoi200976
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.31217
                7770558
                33369660
                a7c7534e-2f20-45e0-af63-4c0849fb9fe8
                Copyright 2020 Lohre R et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 12 July 2020
                : 24 October 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Medical Education

                Comments

                Comment on this article