ArticleJMIR serious games2026
Haptic Virtual Reality Training for Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia in Anesthesiology Trainees: Prospective Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.
Article in JMIR serious games, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anesthesia is a complex psychomotor skill requiring precise tactile discrimination. Traditional manikin-based training may be limited by degraded haptic fidelity and inconsistent tissue feedback. Whether skills acquired through haptic virtual reality (VR) training transfer to supervised clinical procedures remains uncertain. Objective: This study assessed the feasibility and early clinical application of CSE skills after high-fidelity haptic VR training in junior anesthesiology trainees vs traditional manikin-based training. Methods: We conducted a single-center, prospective, parallel-group, randomized, and outcome assessor-blind pilot trial. A total of 20 fifth-year anesthesiology interns with minimal neuraxial experience were randomly assigned (1:1) by an independent investigator using a card draw to a standardized 7-day curriculum with either a traditional manikin (control group [CG], n=10) or a haptic-VR simulator (simulator group [SG], n=10). SG trainees performed repeated punctures on the haptic-VR CSE Teaching Platform, whereas the CG trainees practiced the CSE procedure on a lumbar puncture manikin. Both interventions were delivered face-to-face in a simulation laboratory by experienced instructors. During training, each trainee performed 1 supervised CSE on a patient. Clinical performance was video recorded and assessed by blinded experts. The primary outcome was the 0 to 100 total clinical performance score, rated by 2 assessors. Secondary outcomes included domain-specific scores, procedural time, puncture-angle adjustments, first-attempt success rate, and adverse events within 24 hours. Results: All 20 trainees completed training and clinical assessments and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Overall scores were higher in the SG than in the CG (mean difference 4.50 points, 95% CI 1.85-7.15; Conclusions: Compared with traditional manikin training, haptic-VR training yielded higher overall clinical performance and better tactile-dependent CSE skills during the first supervised patient procedure, whereas manikin training better supported aseptic practice. By evaluating posttraining performance in patients rather than only in simulation, this study extends VR research toward early clinical skill transfer and suggests that the 2 modalities may develop complementary components of procedural competence. In practice, these findings support a blended CSE curriculum in which VR is used for repeated tactile and needle-control training and manikin-based simulation for aseptic preparation and procedural workflow; this approach should be evaluated in larger trials.
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.