Abstract
Novel immersive virtual reality (IVR) technologies are revolutionizing medical education. Virtual anatomy education using head-mounted displays allows users to interact with virtual anatomical objects, move within the virtual rooms, and interact with other virtual users. While IVR has been shown to be more effective than textbook learning and 3D computer models presented in 2D screens, the effectiveness of IVR compared to cadaveric models in anatomy education is currently unknown. In this study, we aim to compare the effectiveness of IVR with direct cadaveric bone models in teaching upper and lower limb anatomy for first-year medical students.
A randomized, double-blind crossover non-inferiority trial was conducted. Participants were first-year medical students from a single University. Exclusion criteria included students who undertook prior undergraduate or graduate degrees in anatomy. In the first stage of the study, students were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to IVR or cadaveric bone groups studying upper limb skeletal anatomy. All students were then crossed over and used cadaveric bone or IVR to study lower limb skeletal anatomy. All students in both groups completed a pre-and post-intervention knowledge test. The educational content was based on the University of Toronto Medical Anatomy Curriculum. The Oculus Quest 2 Headsets (Meta Technologies) and PrecisionOS Anatomy application (PrecisionOS Technology) were utilized for the virtual reality component. The primary endpoint of the study was student performance on the pre-and post-intervention knowledge tests. We hypothesized that student performance in the IVR groups would be comparable to the cadaveric bone group.
50 first-year medical students met inclusion criteria and were computer randomized (1:1 ratio) to IVR and cadaveric bone group for upper limb skeletal anatomy education. Forty-six students attended the study, 21 completed the upper limb modules, and 19 completed the lower limb modules. Among all students, average score on the pre-intervention knowledge test was 14.6% (Standard Deviation (SD)=18.2%) and 25.0% (SD=17%) for upper and lower limbs, respectively. Percentage increase in students’ scores between pre-and post-intervention knowledge test, in the upper limb for IVR, was 15 % and 16.7% for cadaveric bones (p = 0. 2861), and for the lower limb score increase was 22.6% in the IVR and 22.5% in the cadaveric bone group (p = 0.9356).
In this non-inferiority crossover randomized controlled trial, we found no significant difference between student performance in knowledge tests after using IVR or cadaveric bones. Immersive virtual reality and cadaveric bones were equally effective in skeletal anatomy education. Going forward, with advances in VR technologies and anatomy applications, we can expect to see further improvements in the effectiveness of these technologies in anatomy and surgical education. These findings have implications for medical schools having challenges in acquiring cadavers and cadaveric parts.
