Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32769533›Full record

Trial reportClinical orthopaedics and related research2020

Does Virtual Reality Improve Procedural Completion and Accuracy in an Intramedullary Tibial Nail Procedure? A Randomized Control Trial.

Mark D Orland, Michael J Patetta, Michael Wieser, Erdan Kayupov, Mark H Gonzalez

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Evaluation of a Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis Virtual Reality Surgical Simulation for the Orthopaedic Trainee.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2022
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Current status of virtual reality simulation education for orthopedic residents: the need for a change in focus.Global surgical education : journal of the Association for Surgical Education · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Mark D OrlandM. D. Orland, M. J. Patetta, E. Kayupoy, M. H. Gonzalez, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.
Michael J PatettaM. D. Orland, M. J. Patetta, E. Kayupoy, M. H. Gonzalez, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.
Michael WieserM. Wieser, Institute for Orthopaedic Surgery, Lima, OH, USA.
Erdan KayupovM. D. Orland, M. J. Patetta, E. Kayupoy, M. H. Gonzalez, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.
Mark H GonzalezM. D. Orland, M. J. Patetta, E. Kayupoy, M. H. Gonzalez, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.
Defense Threat Reduction Agency · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial reality technologies are currently being explored as potential options to improve surgical education. Previous studies have primarily examined the efficacy of artificial reality in laparoscopic procedures, but to our knowledge, none have been performed in orthopaedically relevant procedures such as intramedullary tibial nailing, which calls for more versatile large-scale movements. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Does a virtual reality simulator with or without a standard technique guide result in (1) a higher proportion of participants who completed the insertion of an intramedullary tibial nail in a synthetic bones model and (2) greater procedural accuracy than does training with a technique guide alone?

methodsTwenty-five first- and second-year medical students without prior exposure to intramedullary tibial nail insertion were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned to the technique guide control group (n = 8), the virtual reality group (n = 8), or the virtual reality and technique guide group (n = 9). The technique guide was adapted from a commercially available technique guide, which participants in the assigned groups could use to prepare as much as desired. The virtual reality simulation was based on the same procedure, and we used a commercially available virtual reality simulator that we purchased for this task. Participants in the virtual reality experimental groups completed the simulation on three separate sessions, at a set interval of 3 to 4 days apart. After 10 to 14 days of preparation, all participants attempted to insert an intramedullary nail into an intact, compact bone-model tibia that lacked surrounding soft tissue. Participants were given written hints if requested, but no other assistance was given. A procedure was considered complete if the nail and screw were properly placed. Procedural accuracy was defined as the number of incorrect steps normalized out of the 16 possible performed. After the procedure, one orthopaedic surgeon assessed a blinded video of the participant performing it so the assessor could not recognize the individual or that individual's gender. Additionally, the assessor was unaware of which group each participant had been randomized to during the evaluation.

resultsA higher proportion of participants in the virtual reality group (6 of 8) and the virtual reality and technique guide group (7 of 9) completed the intramedullary nail than did participants in the technique guide group (2 of 8; p = 0.01). There was no difference in completion between the virtual reality groups (p = 0.89). Participants in the virtual reality and virtual reality and technique guide had fewer normalized incorrect steps than did participants in the technique guide group (3.2 ± 0.1 of 16 and 3.1 ± 0.1 of 16 versus 5.7 ± 0.2 of 16, respectively; p = 0.02 for comparisons of virtual reality groups to technique guide, p = 0.63 between the virtual reality group).

conclusionsVirtual reality increased both procedural accuracy and the completion proportion compared with a technique guide in medical students. Based on our findings, virtual reality may help residents learn the procedural workflow and movements required to perform surgical procedures. Future studies should examine how and when exactly the technology can be applied to residencies and its impact on residents. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

AdultClinical CompetenceEducational StatusFemaleFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryHumansInternship and ResidencyMaleModels, AnatomicSimulation TrainingStudents, MedicalTibiaVirtual Reality

Identifiers

PMID32769533
PMCPMC7431248
OpenAlexW3048835796

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.