Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35866070›Full record

ArticleSurgery open science2022

Remote surgical education using synthetic models combined with an augmented reality headset.

Nelson N Stone, Michael P Wilson, Steven H Griffith, Jos Immerzeel, Frans Debruyne, Michael A Gorin, Wayne Brisbane, Peter F Orio, Laura S Kim, Jonathan J Stone

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Novel educational concepts in prosthetic urology.International journal of impotence research · 2024
    Review
  8. Augmented reality in brachytherapy: A narrative review.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Nelson N StoneDepartment of Urology, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Michael P WilsonViomerse, Inc, Pittsford, NY.
Steven H GriffithViomerse, Inc, Pittsford, NY.
Jos ImmerzeelAndros Clinics, Baarn, The Netherlands.
Frans DebruyneAndros Clinics, Baarn, The Netherlands.
Michael A GorinUrology Associates and UPMC Western Maryland, Cumberland, MD, USA.
Wayne BrisbaneDepartment of Urology, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, FL.
Peter F OrioDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Laura S KimViomerse, Inc, Pittsford, NY.
Jonathan J StoneDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY.
Andros Mannenkliniek · NLHarvard University · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USUniversity of Florida Health · USUniversity of Rochester Medical Center · USUrology Associates · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The objective was to investigate the use of an augmented reality headset to remotely train clinicians on medical devices using anatomic models. Design: Disease-specific phantoms were developed to train physicians in mpMRI-guided fusion prostate biopsy, brachytherapy, and rectal spacer insertion. Training was remotely demonstrated using 1-way virtual video conferencing format. Participants responded to an educational content survey. A heads-up display with software and augmented reality was used for remote 2-way training with the proctor and student using on their own phantoms. Setting: The virtual video meeting took place during a prostate cancer conference in 2020, while the augmented reality training occurred in 2021. The proctor and student wore a heads-up display containing a projector and webcam where the ultrasound image was displayed onto a see-through optic along with the physician's hands. The heads-up display allowed the proctor to teach by line-of-sight while the student watched and repeated the steps. Participants: Faculty with expertise with the medical devices used in these procedures provided training to urologists unfamiliar with these techniques. Results: Participants responded that the 1-way training on the phantoms was realistic and mimicked human tissue. A total of 70.9% requested more training or training on the phantoms. The remote training platform was successfully beta tested at the 2 locations in transperineal prostate biopsy and rectal spacer insertion. Conclusion: Remote training using augmented reality eliminates the need for travel. For training programs and workshops, this technology may mitigate the risk of infectious exposures, reduce training cost, and increase proctor availability, allowing training from their own institution or clinic.This investigation qualifies for the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competency in medical knowledge.

Identifiers

PMID35866070
PMCPMC9294657
OpenAlexW4283391523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.