Abstract
We share our experiences in designing a complete simulator prototype and provide the technological basis to determine whether an immersive medical training environment for vertebroplasty is successful. In our study, the following key research contributions were realised: (1) the effective combination of a virtual reality surgical simulator and a computerised mannequin in designing a novel training setup for medical education, and (2) based on a user-study, the quantitative evaluation through surgical workflow and crisis simulation in proving the face validity of our immersive medical training environment.
Medical simulation platforms intend to assist and support surgical trainees by enhancing their skills in a virtual environment. This approach to training is consistent with an important paradigm shift in medical education that has occurred over the past decade. Surgical trainees have traditionally learned interventions on patients under the supervision of a senior physician in what is essentially an apprenticeship model. In addition to exposing patients to some risk, this tends to be a slow and inherently subjective process that lacks objective, quantitative assessment of performance. By proposing our immersive medical simulator we offer the first shared experimental platform for education researchers to design, implement, test, and compare vertebroplasty training methods.
We collected feedback from two expert and two novice residents, on improving the teaching paradigm during vertebroplasty. In this way, this limits the risks of complications during the skill acquisition phase that all learners must pass through. The complete simulation environment was evaluated on a 5-pt Likert scale format: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neither agree nor disagree, (4) agree, and (5) strongly agree. When assessing all aspects of the realism of the simulation environment, specifically on whether it is suitable for the training of technical skills team training, the participating surgeons gave an average score of 4.5.
Additionally, we also simulated a crisis simulation. During training, the simulation instructor introduced a visualisation depicting cement extravasation into a perivertebral vein. Furthermore, the physiology of the computerised mannequin was influenced by the instructor simulating a lung embolism by gradually lowering the oxygen saturation from 98% to 80% beginning at a standardised point during the procedure. The simulation was stopped after the communication between the surgeon and the anaesthetist occurred which determined their acknowledgment that an adverse event occurred. The realism of this crisis simulation was ranked with an average score of 4.75.
To our knowledge this is the first virtual reality simulator with the capacity to control the introduction of adverse events or complication yielding a wide spectrum of highly adjustable crisis simulation scenarios. Our conclusions validate the importance of incorporating surgical workflow analysis together with virtual reality, human multisensory responses, and the inclusion of real surgical instruments when considering the design of a simulation environment for medical education. The proposed training environment for individuals can be certainly extended to training medical teams.
