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.

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.

Modern prosthetic stem construction strives to achieve the attractive goals of stress shielding prevention and optimal osteointegration. PhysioLogic stem is a new generation composite isoelastic femoral stem consisting of titanium core sheathed in implantable PEEK polymer and coated with titanium layer. This construction combines the benefits of both stress shielding prevention, due to its elasticity under bending load corresponding closely to that of natural bone, and rapid osteointegration, due to the stem's titanium coating.

The aim of this study is long-term clinical progress evaluation and retrospective analysis in patients undergoing primary PhysioLogic stem implantation at our institution.

From 1998 to 2003, we performed 51 primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) operations with implantation of PhysioLogic Stem at our institution. Indications for THA included osteoarthritis (21), hip dysplasia (14), rheumatoid arthritis (10), and femoral neck nonunion (6). In all patients we used totally uncemented system — PhysioLogic Stem and monoblock cup with different types of bearing surface articulation (40 metal/polyethylene, 3 ceramic/polyethylene, and 8 metal/metal). In all cases head size was 28mm. Two patients died in the early post-op period at day 1 and day 9 from disseminated intravascular coagulation and pulmonary embolism, respectively, and were excluded from subsequent analysis. Analyzed patients included 20 women and 29 men; median age 45, range 21–69. Post-operatively, the patients were evaluated at 3 and 6 months, 1 year, and yearly thereafter. Median follow-up period was 14 years, range 11 to 16 years. Clinical and functional outcomes were evaluated by Harris Hip Score. Bone density in Gruen's and Charnley's zones was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Four patients died at 5–8 years postoperatively from cardiac causes. Two patients underwent revision surgery: one patient underwent “dry revision” due to hip dislocation with exchange for longer head while keeping the original PhysioLogic stem in place; second patient underwent stem removal after chronic periprosthetic infection. Among the 45 patients with surviving PhysioLogic Stem, 33 patients (75%) underwent subsequent contralateral total hip arthroplasty with standard uncemented stems types Spotorno or Zweymuller. These patients were surveyed at postoperative evaluation about subjective comparative performance of PhysioLogic Stem versus standard stem. Twenty seven patients (82%) reported the PhysioLogic stem to be equivalent or superior to the standard stem, with 15 patients (45%) rating the PhysioLogic stem as subjectively more comfortable than the standard stem.

The average Harris hip score improved from 40 points preoperatively (range 27 to 48) to 93 points (range 89 to 95) at the time of final follow-up. All stems continue to show adequate bone-ingrown fixation with no radiological signs of aseptic loosening to date. The PhysioLogic stem removed in the aforementioned case of chronic periprosthetic infection also showed clear signs of good osteointegration.

Our study showed that the PhysioLogic stem implantation resulted in favorable clinical and functional performance at long-term follow-up, making it an attractive alternative to standard stems.