Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Simulation-based Education for Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy: A Comparison Between Virtual and Physical Training Models.
Breimer, Gerben E; Haji, Faizal A; Bodani, Vivek; Cunningham, Melissa S; Lopez-Rios, Adriana-Lucia; Okrainec, Allan; Drake, James M.
Afiliación
  • Breimer GE; Centre for Image Guided Innovation and Therapeutic Intervention (CIGITI), The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Haji FA; Department of Neuro-surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Bodani V; Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
  • Cunningham MS; Division of Clinical Neurological Sci-ences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
  • Lopez-Rios AL; SickKids Learning Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Okrainec A; The Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Drake JM; Centre for Image Guided Innovation and Therapeutic Intervention (CIGITI), The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) ; 13(1): 89-95, 2017 02 01.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28931258
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The relative educational benefits of virtual reality (VR) and physical simulation models for endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) have not been evaluated "head to head."

OBJECTIVE:

To compare and identify the relative utility of a physical and VR ETV simulation model for use in neurosurgical training.

METHODS:

Twenty-three neurosurgical residents and 3 fellows performed an ETV on both a physical and VR simulation model. Trainees rated the models using 5-point Likert scales evaluating the domains of anatomy, instrument handling, procedural content, and the overall fidelity of the simulation. Paired t tests were performed for each domain's mean overall score and individual items.

RESULTS:

The VR model has relative benefits compared with the physical model with respect to realistic representation of intraventricular anatomy at the foramen of Monro (4.5, standard deviation [SD] = 0.7 vs 4.1, SD = 0.6; P = .04) and the third ventricle floor (4.4, SD = 0.6 vs 4.0, SD = 0.9; P = .03), although the overall anatomy score was similar (4.2, SD = 0.6 vs 4.0, SD = 0.6; P = .11). For overall instrument handling and procedural content, the physical simulator outperformed the VR model (3.7, SD = 0.8 vs 4.5; SD = 0.5, P < .001 and 3.9; SD = 0.8 vs 4.2, SD = 0.6; P = .02, respectively). Overall task fidelity across the 2 simulators was not perceived as significantly different.

CONCLUSION:

Simulation model selection should be based on educational objectives. Training focused on learning anatomy or decision-making for anatomic cues may be aided with the VR simulation model. A focus on developing manual dexterity and technical skills using endoscopic equipment in the operating room may be better learned on the physical simulation model.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Ventriculostomía / Competencia Clínica / Endoscopía / Realidad Virtual / Internado y Residencia / Neurocirugia Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Límite: Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Canadá

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Ventriculostomía / Competencia Clínica / Endoscopía / Realidad Virtual / Internado y Residencia / Neurocirugia Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Límite: Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Canadá