Aditi Naik, Kristoffer M Cold, Kaladerhan O Agbontaen, Lars Konge, Suveer Singh
{"title":"虚拟现实与增强现实支气管镜模拟训练：一项比较新手支气管镜医师导航表现和认知负荷的随机对照试验。","authors":"Aditi Naik, Kristoffer M Cold, Kaladerhan O Agbontaen, Lars Konge, Suveer Singh","doi":"10.1159/000551106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Flexible bronchoscopy is an essential procedural skill to master for the management of respiratory illness. Bronchoscopy simulators hasten the attainment of competencies. Whether augmented reality (AR) offers advantages over virtual reality (VR) during training is unknown. We tested this premise in novice bronchoscopists by assessing end-of-training performance after mastery learning on either simulator.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised control trial. Thirty bronchoscopists were randomised to a VR (n = 15) or AR (n = 15) simulator training group. Each had up to 2 h to practice full (diagnostic completeness [DC]/18 segments), orderly (structured progress [SP]), and timely (procedure time [PT]) segmental navigation using pre-defined mastery learning protocols. Experts assessed recorded complete test bronchoscopies on 2 different endobronchial airway training models (BronchoBoy®, Koken). Cognitive load during training was compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The VR group outperformed the AR group in the first test (BronchoBoy), marginally for DC (median difference, p value) (1, p = 0.0022) but not SP (1, 0.6887), PT (46 s, 0.8119), or mean intersegmental time (MIT) (2.15 s, 0.9760). In the second test (Koken), the AR group (trained on the Koken) was faster PT (-48 s, 0.0377) but no different from VR in DC, SP, or MIT. The VR group trained for more time than AR (90+/-30 min vs. 80+/-30 min, p = 0.0468). The VR group had a significantly lower mental demand in training than AR (median difference, p value) (15 NASA-TLX points, p = 0.023) but higher physical demand score (35 NASA-TLX points, p = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Training by novices on VR or AR bronchoscopy simulators led to thorough, timely, and moderately ordered test segmental navigation. VR training portended high and slightly more thorough navigation, with lower mental but higher physical demand and longer time-spent-training. Further comparative studies of VR and AR bronchoscopic skills training should seek preferential and predictive factors for optimal clinical proficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":21048,"journal":{"name":"Respiration","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13221171/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Virtual Reality versus Augmented Reality Bronchoscopy Simulation-Based Training: A Randomised Controlled Trial to Compare Navigation Performance and Cognitive Load in Novice Bronchoscopists.\",\"authors\":\"Aditi Naik, Kristoffer M Cold, Kaladerhan O Agbontaen, Lars Konge, Suveer Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000551106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Flexible bronchoscopy is an essential procedural skill to master for the management of respiratory illness. Bronchoscopy simulators hasten the attainment of competencies. Whether augmented reality (AR) offers advantages over virtual reality (VR) during training is unknown. We tested this premise in novice bronchoscopists by assessing end-of-training performance after mastery learning on either simulator.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised control trial. Thirty bronchoscopists were randomised to a VR (n = 15) or AR (n = 15) simulator training group. Each had up to 2 h to practice full (diagnostic completeness [DC]/18 segments), orderly (structured progress [SP]), and timely (procedure time [PT]) segmental navigation using pre-defined mastery learning protocols. Experts assessed recorded complete test bronchoscopies on 2 different endobronchial airway training models (BronchoBoy®, Koken). Cognitive load during training was compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The VR group outperformed the AR group in the first test (BronchoBoy), marginally for DC (median difference, p value) (1, p = 0.0022) but not SP (1, 0.6887), PT (46 s, 0.8119), or mean intersegmental time (MIT) (2.15 s, 0.9760). In the second test (Koken), the AR group (trained on the Koken) was faster PT (-48 s, 0.0377) but no different from VR in DC, SP, or MIT. The VR group trained for more time than AR (90+/-30 min vs. 80+/-30 min, p = 0.0468). The VR group had a significantly lower mental demand in training than AR (median difference, p value) (15 NASA-TLX points, p = 0.023) but higher physical demand score (35 NASA-TLX points, p = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Training by novices on VR or AR bronchoscopy simulators led to thorough, timely, and moderately ordered test segmental navigation. VR training portended high and slightly more thorough navigation, with lower mental but higher physical demand and longer time-spent-training. Further comparative studies of VR and AR bronchoscopic skills training should seek preferential and predictive factors for optimal clinical proficiency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Respiration\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13221171/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Respiration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000551106\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiration","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000551106","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Virtual Reality versus Augmented Reality Bronchoscopy Simulation-Based Training: A Randomised Controlled Trial to Compare Navigation Performance and Cognitive Load in Novice Bronchoscopists.
Introduction: Flexible bronchoscopy is an essential procedural skill to master for the management of respiratory illness. Bronchoscopy simulators hasten the attainment of competencies. Whether augmented reality (AR) offers advantages over virtual reality (VR) during training is unknown. We tested this premise in novice bronchoscopists by assessing end-of-training performance after mastery learning on either simulator.
Methods: This is a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised control trial. Thirty bronchoscopists were randomised to a VR (n = 15) or AR (n = 15) simulator training group. Each had up to 2 h to practice full (diagnostic completeness [DC]/18 segments), orderly (structured progress [SP]), and timely (procedure time [PT]) segmental navigation using pre-defined mastery learning protocols. Experts assessed recorded complete test bronchoscopies on 2 different endobronchial airway training models (BronchoBoy®, Koken). Cognitive load during training was compared.
Results: The VR group outperformed the AR group in the first test (BronchoBoy), marginally for DC (median difference, p value) (1, p = 0.0022) but not SP (1, 0.6887), PT (46 s, 0.8119), or mean intersegmental time (MIT) (2.15 s, 0.9760). In the second test (Koken), the AR group (trained on the Koken) was faster PT (-48 s, 0.0377) but no different from VR in DC, SP, or MIT. The VR group trained for more time than AR (90+/-30 min vs. 80+/-30 min, p = 0.0468). The VR group had a significantly lower mental demand in training than AR (median difference, p value) (15 NASA-TLX points, p = 0.023) but higher physical demand score (35 NASA-TLX points, p = 0.004).
Conclusion: Training by novices on VR or AR bronchoscopy simulators led to thorough, timely, and moderately ordered test segmental navigation. VR training portended high and slightly more thorough navigation, with lower mental but higher physical demand and longer time-spent-training. Further comparative studies of VR and AR bronchoscopic skills training should seek preferential and predictive factors for optimal clinical proficiency.
期刊介绍：
''Respiration'' brings together the results of both clinical and experimental investigations on all aspects of the respiratory system in health and disease. Clinical improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of chest and lung diseases are covered, as are the latest findings in physiology, biochemistry, pathology, immunology and pharmacology. The journal includes classic features such as editorials that accompany original articles in clinical and basic science research, reviews and letters to the editor. Further sections are: Technical Notes, The Eye Catcher, What’s Your Diagnosis?, The Opinion Corner, New Drugs in Respiratory Medicine, New Insights from Clinical Practice and Guidelines. ''Respiration'' is the official journal of the Swiss Society for Pneumology (SGP) and also home to the European Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (EABIP), which occupies a dedicated section on Interventional Pulmonology in the journal. This modern mix of different features and a stringent peer-review process by a dedicated editorial board make ''Respiration'' a complete guide to progress in thoracic medicine.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
