Virtual Reality Does Not Meet Expectations in a Pilot Study on Multimodal Laparoscopic Surgery Training
Virtual Reality Does Not Meet Expectations in a Pilot Study on Multimodal Laparoscopic Surgery Training
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00268-013-1963-3
复制
发表时间：
2013-05-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Mueller-Stich, Beat P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nickel, Felix;Bintintan, Vasile V.;Mueller-Stich, Beat P.
本研究旨在探讨虚拟现实(VR)训练在腹腔镜手术多模式训练中的应用价值。在为期两天的腹腔镜手术多模式训练中，参与者在脉动器官灌注(POP)训练器上使用盒式训练器、活体动物训练器和身体训练器进行结构化和标准化的训练。参与者被分成两组。VR组(n=13)在训练过程中也进行VR训练，而对照组(n=14)不进行VR训练。项目结束后，使用Likert五点量表的问卷对培训方式进行评估。关于VR培训，对照组成员评估他们的期望，而VR组成员评估使用它的实际体验。在一个活体猪模型中，在训练计划之前(测试前)和之后(测试后)，用五个标准化测试任务来评估技能表现。通过任务完成时间和每项任务的总体表现分数来衡量腹腔镜检查技能。比较所有参与者的基线测试和腹腔镜体验的技能测试的结构效度，控制组从VR培训中预期的收益高于VR组的经验收益。在某些目的上，虚拟现实组的盒子和流行音乐培训比控制组的评分更高。从训练前到训练后测试，两组的技能参数均有显著提高[得分+17%(P<；0.01)，时间-29%(P<；0.01)]。除器械协调作业得分外，两组在腹腔镜操作技能提高方面差异无统计学意义。技能测试的结构效度在时间和分数上都具有显著意义，但在目前的表现水平上，虚拟现实培训并没有达到预期。在我们的多模式培训计划中，没有观察到VR培训的额外好处。
The purpose of the present study was to determine the value of virtual reality (VR) training for a multimodality training program of basic laparoscopic surgery.Participants in a two-day multimodality training for laparoscopic surgery used box trainers, live animal training, and cadaveric training on the pulsating organ perfusion (POP) trainer in a structured and standardized training program. The participants were divided into two groups. The VR group (n = 13) also practiced with VR training during the program, whereas the control group (n = 14) did not use VR training. The training modalities were assessed using questionnaires with a five-point Likert scale after the program. Concerning VR training, members of the control group assessed their expectations, whereas the VR group assessed the actual experience of using it. Skills performance was evaluated with five standardized test tasks in a live porcine model before (pre-test) and after (post-test) the training program. Laparoscopic skills were measured by task completion time and a general performance score for each task. Baseline tests were compared with laparoscopic experience of all participants for construct validity of the skills test.The expected benefit from VR training of the control group was higher than the experienced benefit of the VR group. Box and POP training received better ratings from the VR group than from the control group for some purposes. Both groups improved their skill parameters significantly from pre-training to post-training tests [score +17 % (P < 0.01), time -29 % (P < 0.01)]. No significant difference was found between the two groups for laparoscopic skills improvement except for the score in the instrument coordination task. Construct validity of the skills test was significant for both time and score.At its current level of performance, VR training does not meet expectations. No additional benefit was observed from VR training in our multimodality training program.