Operators believe patient-specific rehearsal improve individual and team performance.

INTRODUCTION: Rehearsing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair on patient-specific data is recent within virtual reality simulation and opens up new possibilities for operators to prepare for complex procedures. This study evaluated the feasibility of patient-specific rehearsal (PsR) and assessed operators' appraisal of the VIST-LAB simulator from Mentice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: CT-data was segmented and uploaded to the simulator, and simulated for 30 elective EVAR patients. Operators were asked how they perceived the PsR on a Likert scale after the PsR (once) and after the following procedure (each time). RESULTS: Patients were simulated and operated by 14 operators, always in pairs of one vascular surgeon and one interventional radiologist. The operators estimated that PsR improved individual and team performance (median 4), and recommended the use of PsR in general (median 4) and for difficult cases (median 5). The simulator realism got moderate scores (median 2-3). Inexperienced operators seemed to appreciate the PsR the most. CONCLUSIONS: PsR was feasible and was evaluated by operators to improve individual and team performance. Inexperienced users were more positive towards PsR than experienced users. PsR realism and the ease of importing patient-specific data can still be improved, and further studies to quantify and precisely identify benefits are needed.

Influence of patient-specific rehearsal on operative metrics and technical success for endovascular aneurysm repair.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-specific rehearsal (PsR) is a recent technology within virtual reality (VR) simulation that lets the operators train on patient-specific data in a simulated environment prior to the procedure. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a complex procedure where operative metrics and technical success might improve after PsR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We compared technical success and operative metrics (endovascular procedure time, contralateral gate cannulation time, fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose, number of angiograms and contrast medium use) between 30 patients, where the operators performed PsR (the PsR group), and 30 patients without PsR (the control group). RESULTS: The endovascular procedure time was significantly shorter in the PsR group than in the control group (median 44 versus 55 min, p = .017). The other operative metrics were similar. Technical success rates were higher in the PsR group, 96.7% primary and assisted primary outcome versus 90.0% in the control group. The differences were not significant (p = .076). CONCLUSIONS: PsR before EVAR reduced endovascular procedure time, and our results indicate that it might improve technical success, but further studies are needed to confirm those results.