Metaverse-Based Virtual Reality for Remote Anatomy Education: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Traditional anatomy teaching relies on cadaveric dissection and 2D resources, which often require in-person attendance and may limit spatial understanding. Virtual reality (VR) provides an immersive, remote alternative that supports 3D visualization from home. Recent evidence suggests that while VR may yield comparable factual knowledge gains to 2D methods, its primary value lies in enhancing learner engagement, motivation, and perceived educational value. Objective: This pilot randomized controlled trial compares remote synchronized VR with didactic animated anatomy lectures for the teaching of tracheostomy anatomy. Methods: Participants were recruited via convenience sampling through the VRiMS (Virtual Reality in Medicine and Surgery) Surgical Society network. All participants first attended a synchronous 20-minute online lecture delivered by a consultant surgeon. They were then individually randomized to one of 2 groups using a computer-generated sequence. Allocation was concealed until the intervention; however, participants and researchers were unblinded. The intervention group completed a 10-minute metaverse-based VR session, delivered by a consultant surgeon via 3D Organon's Medverse platform on the PICO 4 Ultra headset. The control group completed a 10-minute prerecorded 2D animated lecture, accessed on their personal device. Participants then swapped to the other modality. Data were collected via Google Forms at 3 intervals (baseline, postintervention, and postcrossover) to assess confidence, spatial understanding, and knowledge (10-item multiple-choice questions). The analysis of nonparametric data utilized Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for within-group changes and Mann-Whitney U tests for between-group differences. Results: Twenty-four medical students from 11 United Kingdom and Irish medical schools participated. Adherence was 100%, with all participants completing their assigned 10-minute intervention and all assessment points. Ninety-two percent of participants (n=22) reported no prior tracheostomy anatomy teaching. Additionally, 83% (n=20) had no prior remote-synchronized VR anatomy teaching experience. Anatomical confidence improved significantly in the VR group compared with animation (mean change 1.58, SD 1.00 vs mean 0.50, SD 0.80, P=.01). Knowledge scores improved significantly in both groups (VR: mean 1.75, SD 1.54, P=.007; animation: mean 2.83, SD 1.70, P=.003), with no significant postintervention difference between groups (P=.46). VR participants reported significantly superior spatial understanding across all measured domains (all P≤.009). These included depth perception (3.75 vs 2.58, P=.009), appreciation of anatomy from different viewpoints (4.25 vs 2.33, P=.001), mental reconstruction from varying angles (3.83 vs 2.08, P=.002), and spatial depth supporting anatomical understanding (4.08 vs 2.08, P=.001). Following the completion of both modalities, participants rated VR as more engaging (mean 4.54, SD 0.78) and more educationally effective (mean 4.29, SD 0.95) than animation. Conclusions: Remote VR teaching is feasible and engaging and enhances spatial understanding compared to animation. While knowledge gains were comparable between modalities, VR improved learner confidence and perceived 3D comprehension. Hence, VR may represent a scalable adjunct or alternative to traditional anatomy teaching.