Randomized controlled trial of the CMR immersive virtual reality (IVR) headset training compared to e-learning for operating room configuration of the CMR versius robot.

Robotic surgery offers potential advantages over laparoscopic procedures, but the training for configuring robotic systems in the operating room remains underexplored. This study seeks to validate immersive virtual reality (IVR) headset training for setting up the CMR Versius in the operating room. This single-blinded randomized control trial randomised medical students with no prior robotic experience using an online randomiser. The intervention group received IVR headset training, and the control group, e-learning modules. Assessors were blinded to participant group. Primary endpoint was overall score (OS): Likert-scale 1-5: 1 reflecting independent performance, with increasing verbal prompts to a maximum score of 5, requiring physical assistance to complete the task. Secondary endpoints included task scores, time, inter-rater reliability, and concordance with participant confidence scores. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Version 27. Of 23 participants analysed, 11 received IVR and 12 received e-learning. The median OS was lower in the IVR group than the e-learning group 53.5 vs 84.5 (p < 0.001). VR recipients performed tasks independently more frequently and required less physical assistance than e-learning participants (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in time to completion (p = 0.880). Self-assessed confidence scores and assessor scores differed for e-learning participants (p = 0.008), though not IVR participants (p = 0.607). IVR learning is more effective than e-learning for preparing robot-naïve individuals in operating room set-up of the CMR Versius. It offers a feasible, realistic, and accessible option in resource-limited settings and changing dynamics of operating theatre teams. Ongoing deliberate practice, however, is still necessary for achieving optimal performance. ISCRTN Number 10064213.

Coil Embolization of Femoral Pseudoaneurysms in Intravenous Drug Users: An Additional Treatment Modality.

BACKGROUND: This report describes our centers' experience of a new approach using coil embolization for femoral pseudoaneurysms (PSAs) in intravenous drug users (IVDUs). Current treatment options for this challenging patient group include femoral/external iliac artery ligation and excision of the PSA, with or without revascularization. Radiological thrombin injection, endoluminal stent grafting, and coil embolization have not been widely studied in this patient group and are most commonly reserved for sterile PSAs. METHODS: A series of 6 patients who presented to the vascular surgical department with IVDU-related PSA were treated with coil embolization. We present here their clinical course and outcomes. Ethical approval was not required. RESULTS: Coil embolization alone did not result in a satisfactory outcome. Thirty-three percent of patients required vessel ligation following their initial treatment with coil embolization. However, all patients initially managed with coil embolization, whether as a definitive treatment or temporizing measure to surgery, were discharged home, mobilizing well, with Doppler signals at the ankle. Postoperative claudication was present in 17% of patients. There were no amputations as a direct result of coil embolization. The amputation in this series resulted from triple-vessel ligation without revascularization in a patient mistaken as having a groin abscess. CONCLUSIONS: Coil embolization is a potential, less invasive treatment option in selected cases of IVDU PSA. It offers an alternative therapeutic intervention, adding to the armamentarium available to tackle these often challenging patients.