虚拟现实技术在骨科培训生股骨头骨骺滑动手术中的应用

A. Margalit, K. Suresh, M. Marrache, Jonathon Lentz, R. Lee, J. Tis, R. Varghese, Brooke Hayashi, Amit Jain, D. Laporte
{"title":"虚拟现实技术在骨科培训生股骨头骨骺滑动手术中的应用","authors":"A. Margalit, K. Suresh, M. Marrache, Jonathon Lentz, R. Lee, J. Tis, R. Varghese, Brooke Hayashi, Amit Jain, D. Laporte","doi":"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between orthopaedic trainees using various preoperative training platforms (physical simulation [PS], virtual reality [VR], and reading/videos) in a slipped capital femoral epiphysis model. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: (1) reading/video control group (n = 7), (2) VR group (n = 7), or (3) PS group (n = 7). Participants in the VR group completed a VR slipped capital femoral epiphysis module while participants in the PS group practiced the placement of a screw in the physical module before evaluation of percutaneous screw placement in the PS model. Outcomes evaluated included overall surgical time, amount of fluoroscopy, Global Rating Scale score, radiographic screw position, physical screw accuracy, presence of breeching of the articular surface or femoral neck, and overall platform rating (0 to 10). Results: No difference was observed in surgical time, Global Rating Scale score, radiographic or physical accuracy of screw position, or articular surface breaching between the groups. Subjectively, there was a difference in utility of platform rating between the groups (PS: 10 ± 0, VR: 7 ± 2, and control: 6 ± 1, P = 0.001). Conclusion: Training with VR was subjectively rated higher in value compared with reading/video methods and had similar performance outcomes compared with training with PS.","PeriodicalId":145112,"journal":{"name":"JAAOS Global Research & Reviews","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of a Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis Virtual Reality Surgical Simulation for the Orthopaedic Trainee\",\"authors\":\"A. Margalit, K. Suresh, M. Marrache, Jonathon Lentz, R. Lee, J. Tis, R. Varghese, Brooke Hayashi, Amit Jain, D. Laporte\",\"doi\":\"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between orthopaedic trainees using various preoperative training platforms (physical simulation [PS], virtual reality [VR], and reading/videos) in a slipped capital femoral epiphysis model. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: (1) reading/video control group (n = 7), (2) VR group (n = 7), or (3) PS group (n = 7). Participants in the VR group completed a VR slipped capital femoral epiphysis module while participants in the PS group practiced the placement of a screw in the physical module before evaluation of percutaneous screw placement in the PS model. Outcomes evaluated included overall surgical time, amount of fluoroscopy, Global Rating Scale score, radiographic screw position, physical screw accuracy, presence of breeching of the articular surface or femoral neck, and overall platform rating (0 to 10). Results: No difference was observed in surgical time, Global Rating Scale score, radiographic or physical accuracy of screw position, or articular surface breaching between the groups. Subjectively, there was a difference in utility of platform rating between the groups (PS: 10 ± 0, VR: 7 ± 2, and control: 6 ± 1, P = 0.001). Conclusion: Training with VR was subjectively rated higher in value compared with reading/video methods and had similar performance outcomes compared with training with PS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":145112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAAOS Global Research & Reviews\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAAOS Global Research & Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00028\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAAOS Global Research & Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是比较骨科学员使用不同的术前训练平台(物理模拟[PS]、虚拟现实[VR]和阅读/视频)在股骨头骨骺滑动模型中的效果。方法:参与者被随机分配到三组中的一组:(1)阅读/视频对照组(n = 7), (2) VR组(n = 7)或(3)PS组(n = 7)。VR组的参与者完成了VR滑动股骨骨骺模块,而PS组的参与者在评估经皮螺钉置入PS模型之前练习了在物理模块中放置螺钉。评估的结果包括总体手术时间、透视量、Global Rating Scale评分、x线片螺钉位置、物理螺钉准确性、关节面或股骨颈后突的存在以及整体平台评分(0 - 10)。结果:两组患者在手术时间、Global Rating Scale评分、螺钉位置的影像学或物理准确性、关节面破裂等方面均无差异。主观上,两组间平台效用评分存在差异(PS: 10±0,VR: 7±2,对照组:6±1,P = 0.001)。结论:与阅读/视频训练相比,VR训练的主观评价价值更高,与PS训练的表现结果相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of a Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis Virtual Reality Surgical Simulation for the Orthopaedic Trainee
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between orthopaedic trainees using various preoperative training platforms (physical simulation [PS], virtual reality [VR], and reading/videos) in a slipped capital femoral epiphysis model. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: (1) reading/video control group (n = 7), (2) VR group (n = 7), or (3) PS group (n = 7). Participants in the VR group completed a VR slipped capital femoral epiphysis module while participants in the PS group practiced the placement of a screw in the physical module before evaluation of percutaneous screw placement in the PS model. Outcomes evaluated included overall surgical time, amount of fluoroscopy, Global Rating Scale score, radiographic screw position, physical screw accuracy, presence of breeching of the articular surface or femoral neck, and overall platform rating (0 to 10). Results: No difference was observed in surgical time, Global Rating Scale score, radiographic or physical accuracy of screw position, or articular surface breaching between the groups. Subjectively, there was a difference in utility of platform rating between the groups (PS: 10 ± 0, VR: 7 ± 2, and control: 6 ± 1, P = 0.001). Conclusion: Training with VR was subjectively rated higher in value compared with reading/video methods and had similar performance outcomes compared with training with PS.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信