Virtual reality simulation to enhance advanced trauma life support trainings - a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) is the gold standard of initial assessment of trauma patients and therefore a widely used training program for medical professionals. Practical application of the knowledge taught can be challenging for medical students and inexperienced clinicians. Simulation-based training, including virtual reality (VR), has proven to be a valuable adjunct to real-world experiences in trauma education. Previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of VR simulations for surgical and technical skills training. However, there is limited evidence on VR simulation training specifically for trauma education, particularly within the ATLS curriculum. The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and acceptance of using a fully immersive VR trauma simulation to prepare medical students for the ATLS course. METHODS: This was a prospective randomised controlled pilot study on a convenience sample of advanced medical students (n = 56; intervention group with adjunct training using a commercially available semi-automated trauma VR simulation, n = 28, vs control group, n = 28) taking part in the ATLS course of the Military Physician Officer School. Feasibility was assessed by evaluating factors related to technical factors of the VR training (e.g. rate of interruptions and premature termination). Objective and subjective effectiveness was assessed using confidence ratings at four pre-specified points in the curriculum, validated surveys, clinical scenario scores, multiple choice knowledge tests, and ATLS final clinical scenario and course pass rates. Acceptance was measured using validated instruments to assess variables of media use (Technology acceptance, usability, presence and immersion, workload, and user satisfaction). RESULTS: The feasibility assessment demonstrated that only one premature termination occurred and that all remaining participants in the intervention group correctly stabilised the patient. No significant differences between the two groups in terms of objective effectiveness were observed (p = 0.832 and p = 0.237 for the pretest and final knowledge test, respectively; p = 0.485 for the pass rates for the final clinical scenario on the first attempt; all participants passed the ATLS course). In terms of subjective effectiveness, the authors found significantly improved confidence post-VR intervention (p < .001) in providing emergency care using the ATLS principles. Perceived usefulness in the TEI was stated with a mean of 4 (SD 0.8; range 0-5). Overall acceptance and usability of the VR simulation was rated as positive (System Usability Scale total score mean 79.4 (SD 11.3, range 0-100). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this prospective pilot study indicate the potential of using VR trauma simulations as a feasible and acceptable supplementary tool for the ATLS training course. Where objective effectiveness regarding test and scenario scores remained unchanged, subjective effectiveness demonstrated improvement. Future research should focus on identifying specific scenarios and domains where VR can outperform or enhance traditional learning methods in trauma simulation.

Prognostic value of four classifications of calcaneal fractures.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assist surgeons treating calcaneal fractures in choosing the most predictive fracture classification and clinical outcome tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 152 patients (189 calcaneal fractures; average followup, 9.9 years), all fractures were classified in accordance with the Essex-Lopresti, OTA, Regazzoni, and Sanders classifications and matched with the following scores: AOFAS score, CNHF, FOA, MFS, Rowe, MFA, SF-36, and VAS. RESULTS: The Essex-Lopresti classification showed no statistically significant relation with any of the clinical scores (p > 0.05). The OTA classification related statistically significant with the MFS (p = 0.006), AOFAS score (p = 0.013), FOA (p = 0.019), Rowe (p = 0.0027), and MFA score (p = 0.03). The Regazzoni classification correlated with the AOFAS score (p = 0.003), MFS (p = 0.002), Rowe (p = 0.002), CNHF (p = 0.0001), FOA (p = 0.003), MFA score (p = 0.002), and VAS (p = 0.005). The Sanders classification corrrelated with the AOFAS score (p = 0.007), MFS (p = 0.001), Rowe (p = 0.001), CNHF (p = 0.024), FOA (p = 0.021), MFA score (p = 0.036), and VAS (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Compared to radiological based classifications, the CT based classifications, especially the Regazzoni and Sanders classifications, exhibited higher prognostic value compared to ultimate outcome scores.