Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38456945›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2024

Comparing a virtual reality head-mounted display to on-screen three-dimensional visualization and two-dimensional computed tomography data for training in decision making in hepatic surgery: a randomized controlled study.

Anas Amin Preukschas, Philipp Anthony Wise, Lisa Bettscheider, Micha Pfeiffer, Martin Wagner, Matthias Huber, Mohammad Golriz, Lars Fischer, Arianeb Mehrabi, Fabian Rössler and 5 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

15 authors.

Anas Amin PreukschasDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Philipp Anthony WiseDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lisa BettscheiderDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Micha PfeifferInstitute for Anthropomatics and Robotics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Kaiserstrasse 12, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Martin WagnerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Matthias HuberInstitute for Anthropomatics and Robotics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Kaiserstrasse 12, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Mohammad GolrizDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lars FischerDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Mittelbaden, Balgerstrasse 50, 76532, Baden-Baden, Germany.
Arianeb MehrabiDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Fabian RösslerDepartment of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital of Zürich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland.
Stefanie SpeidelDepartment for Translational Surgical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Fiedlerstraße 23, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Thilo HackertDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Beat Peter Müller-StichDivision of Abdominal Surgery, Clarunis Academic Centre of Gastrointestinal Diseases, St. Clara and University Hospital of Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4051, Basel, Switzerland.
Felix NickelDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hannes Götz KenngottDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Hannes.Kenngott@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft SFB 125
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEvaluation of the benefits of a virtual reality (VR) environment with a head-mounted display (HMD) for decision-making in liver surgery.

backgroundTraining in liver surgery involves appraising radiologic images and considering the patient's clinical information. Accurate assessment of 2D-tomography images is complex and requires considerable experience, and often the images are divorced from the clinical information. We present a comprehensive and interactive tool for visualizing operation planning data in a VR environment using a head-mounted-display and compare it to 3D visualization and 2D-tomography.

methodsNinety medical students were randomized into three groups (1:1:1 ratio). All participants analyzed three liver surgery patient cases with increasing difficulty. The cases were analyzed using 2D-tomography data (group "2D"), a 3D visualization on a 2D display (group "3D") or within a VR environment (group "VR"). The VR environment was displayed using the "Oculus Rift ™" HMD technology. Participants answered 11 questions on anatomy, tumor involvement and surgical decision-making and 18 evaluative questions (Likert scale).

resultsSum of correct answers were significantly higher in the 3D (7.1 ± 1.4, p < 0.001) and VR (7.1 ± 1.4, p < 0.001) groups than the 2D group (5.4 ± 1.4) while there was no difference between 3D and VR (p = 0.987). Times to answer in the 3D (6:44 ± 02:22 min, p < 0.001) and VR (6:24 ± 02:43 min, p < 0.001) groups were significantly faster than the 2D group (09:13 ± 03:10 min) while there was no difference between 3D and VR (p = 0.419). The VR environment was evaluated as most useful for identification of anatomic anomalies, risk and target structures and for the transfer of anatomical and pathological information to the intraoperative situation in the questionnaire.

conclusionsA VR environment with 3D visualization using a HMD is useful as a surgical training tool to accurately and quickly determine liver anatomy and tumor involvement in surgery.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalTomography, X-Ray ComputedVirtual RealityAdultClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHepatectomyHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleUser-Computer InterfaceYoung AdultHead mounted displayHepatic surgery trainingThree dimensional visualizationVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID38456945
PMCPMC11078809

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.