Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38554218›Full record

Trial reportJournal of robotic surgery2024

Randomized controlled trial of the CMR immersive virtual reality (IVR) headset training compared to e-learning for operating room configuration of the CMR versius robot.

Catherine L Eley, Varun Palaniappan, Abbie Carter, Opeyemi Sogaolu, James Horwood, Michael Davies, Jared Torkington, James Ansell

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine L EleyUniversity Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF144XY, United Kingdom. catherine.eley@hotmail.co.uk.
Varun PalaniappanPrincess of Wales Hopsital, Coity Road, Bridgend, CF31 1RQ, United Kingdom.
Abbie CarterSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, United Kingdom.
Opeyemi SogaoluUniversity Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF144XY, United Kingdom.
James HorwoodUniversity Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF144XY, United Kingdom.
Michael DaviesUniversity Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF144XY, United Kingdom.
Jared TorkingtonUniversity Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF144XY, United Kingdom.
James AnsellUniversity Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF144XY, United Kingdom.
University Hospital of Wales · GBCardiff University · GBPrincess of Wales Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic surgery offers potential advantages over laparoscopic procedures, but the training for configuring robotic systems in the operating room remains underexplored. This study seeks to validate immersive virtual reality (IVR) headset training for setting up the CMR Versius in the operating room. This single-blinded randomized control trial randomised medical students with no prior robotic experience using an online randomiser. The intervention group received IVR headset training, and the control group, e-learning modules. Assessors were blinded to participant group. Primary endpoint was overall score (OS): Likert-scale 1-5: 1 reflecting independent performance, with increasing verbal prompts to a maximum score of 5, requiring physical assistance to complete the task. Secondary endpoints included task scores, time, inter-rater reliability, and concordance with participant confidence scores. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Version 27. Of 23 participants analysed, 11 received IVR and 12 received e-learning. The median OS was lower in the IVR group than the e-learning group 53.5 vs 84.5 (p < 0.001). VR recipients performed tasks independently more frequently and required less physical assistance than e-learning participants (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in time to completion (p = 0.880). Self-assessed confidence scores and assessor scores differed for e-learning participants (p = 0.008), though not IVR participants (p = 0.607). IVR learning is more effective than e-learning for preparing robot-naïve individuals in operating room set-up of the CMR Versius. It offers a feasible, realistic, and accessible option in resource-limited settings and changing dynamics of operating theatre teams. Ongoing deliberate practice, however, is still necessary for achieving optimal performance. ISCRTN Number 10064213.

Indexed as

Computer-Assisted InstructionRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresVirtual RealityClinical CompetenceHumansOperating RoomsReproducibility of ResultsModularRoboticSurgeryVirtual Reality

Identifiers

PMID38554218
PMCPMC10981610
OpenAlexW4393343343

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.