There is increasing pressure to develop virtual reality surgical simulation that can be used in surgical training. However, little is known of the attitudes of the surgical community towards such simulation, and which aspects of simulation are most important.

A postal survey on attitudes to surgical simulation was sent to all New Zealand orthopaedic surgeons and advanced trainees. This comprised 44 questions in ten sections, using either a visual analogue scale (0 to 10) or free text box replies. Results were analysed for two sub-groups; surgeons qualified before 1990 and those qualified in or after 1990 or still in training.

Of 208 possible responses, 142 were received, a response rate of 68%. Only 4 respondents had tried a surgical based simulator. Earlier qualified surgeons were more likely to agree that simulation was an effective way to practice surgical procedures, median score 7.7 versus 5.6 (p=0.03). Both groups thought the most important task for simulation was practicing angulation/spatial orientation (median score 8.4/10), while a realistic view of the operation was the most important requirement (median score 9/10). Both groups were unconvinced that simulation would impact on their practice in the next five years, with this statement being scored lower by later qualified surgeons, median score 2.4 versus 4.1 (p=0.04).

Orthopaedic surgeons in New Zealand are supportive of surgical simulation but do not expect simulation to have an impact in the near future. Intriguingly, later qualified surgeons and trainees are more sceptical than their earlier qualified colleagues.

Reimers’ hip migration percentage is commonly used to document the extent of subluxation of the hip in children with spasticity. In this study, two measurers, with six months paediatric orthopaedic experience, measured the migration percentage on 44 pelvic radiographs of children with cerebral palsy, aged between two and eight years. Unknown to the measurers, each radiograph was duplicated, giving 22 non-identical radiographs (44 hips) which were measured twice at time 0 and twice six weeks later. The intra-measurer, intra-sessional absolute differences between the first and second measurements ranged from 0% to 23%, with median values of 2.5% to 3.6%. The intra-sessional median absolute differences were not statistically different between the two measurers and measuring sessions (p = 0.42, Kruskal-Wallis test). The inter-sessional absolute differences for measurements made by the same measurers ranged from 0% to 18% with a median absolute difference of 1.7% to 3.2%. Overall, only 5% of the intra-measurer measurement differences, within and between sessions, were above 13%. Repeated measurements by one measurer over time must, therefore, vary by more than 13% in order to be 95% confident of a true change. The inter-measurer error was higher with median absolute differences between the two measurers’ measurements of the same hip of 3.25% to 5% (0% to 26%) and a 95^th upper confidence interval of 21% to 23%. Averaging the four separate measurements over the two sessions reduced the inter-measurer error to a median absolute difference of 2.8%, but did not improve the 95^th upper confidence interval, which measured 22.4%.

Such inter-measurer errors may be clinically unacceptable.