Trial reportJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2022
Evaluation of a Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis Virtual Reality Surgical Simulation for the Orthopaedic Trainee.
Trial report in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Critical Anatomy-Preserving & Terrain-Augmenting Navigation (CAPTAiN): Application to Laminectomy Surgical Education.IEEE transactions on medical robotics and bionics · 2025Article
- Innovative strategies for reconstructing medical education through technology: a literature review.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Application of Virtual Reality Systems in Bone Trauma Procedures.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Extended reality for biomedicine.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2023Article
- Virtual Reality and Surgical Simulation Training for Orthopaedic Surgery Residents: A Qualitative Assessment of Trainee Perspectives.JB & JS open accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between orthopaedic trainees using various preoperative training platforms (physical simulation [PS], virtual reality [VR], and reading/videos) in a slipped capital femoral epiphysis model.
methodsParticipants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: (1) reading/video control group (n = 7), (2) VR group (n = 7), or (3) PS group (n = 7). Participants in the VR group completed a VR slipped capital femoral epiphysis module while participants in the PS group practiced the placement of a screw in the physical module before evaluation of percutaneous screw placement in the PS model. Outcomes evaluated included overall surgical time, amount of fluoroscopy, Global Rating Scale score, radiographic screw position, physical screw accuracy, presence of breeching of the articular surface or femoral neck, and overall platform rating (0 to 10).
resultsNo difference was observed in surgical time, Global Rating Scale score, radiographic or physical accuracy of screw position, or articular surface breaching between the groups. Subjectively, there was a difference in utility of platform rating between the groups (PS: 10 ± 0, VR: 7 ± 2, and control: 6 ± 1, P = 0.001).
conclusionTraining with VR was subjectively rated higher in value compared with reading/video methods and had similar performance outcomes compared with training with PS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.