ReviewCureus2025
Can Virtual Reality Simulation Trainers Provide Transferable Skills in Knee Arthroscopy?
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) simulation is emerging as a high-fidelity training tool for knee arthroscopy, providing a risk-free learning environment. This study systematically evaluates current evidence on the effectiveness of VR simulation training in providing transferable skills for knee arthroscopy and the effects on operative time, complication rates and clinical outcomes. A systematic review of nine databases identified studies published until September 2024 using search terms "knee arthroscopy" and "simulation" or "simulator." Key outcomes included time to task completion, operative time, Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET) scores, path length and validity measures. Previous reviews were assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool. Risk of bias was evaluated with ROB-2 and ROBINS-I tools. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to account for study heterogeneity. Nine studies (seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and two observational studies) involving 327 participants across eight countries were included. Seven studies confirmed skill transfer to cadaveric models; only one showed intraoperative (in vivo) transfer. Compared with controls, the VR-trained participants showed significant improvement in time to completion (mean difference (MD): -87.58 seconds; p=0.010; 95% confidence interval (CI): -153.88 to -21.28 seconds). No difference was seen compared to other methods of simulation training in time (MD: 2.97 seconds; p=0.90; 95% CI: -44.35 to 50.29) and ASSET scores (MD: 0.76; p=0.42; 95% CI: -1.09 to 2.61). Across the seven RCTs, the VR-trained groups showed shorter procedure times, improved movement economy and higher global scores compared with the non-VR-trained groups. VR simulation is a potentially effective tool for knee arthroscopic training, providing a safe learning environment, but there remains scope to improve and validate its effectiveness in vivo. While evidence supports skill transfer to simulated cadaveric and simulated environments, further research is needed to validate in vivo transfer, assess clinical impact and evaluate cost-effectiveness and scalability for widespread curriculum integration.
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.