Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:49:56.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presentation of automated procedural guidance in surgical simulation: results of two randomised controlled trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2018

S Wijewickrema ,
Y Zhou ,
I Ioannou ,
B Copson ,
P Piromchai ,
C Yu ,
R Briggs ,
J Bailey ,
G Kennedy  and
S O'Leary
S Wijewickrema*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery (Otolaryngology), University of Melbourne, Australia
Y Zhou
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery (Otolaryngology), University of Melbourne, Australia
I Ioannou
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery (Otolaryngology), University of Melbourne, Australia
B Copson
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery (Otolaryngology), University of Melbourne, Australia
P Piromchai
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery (Otolaryngology), University of Melbourne, Australia Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
C Yu
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Nanjing University, China
R Briggs
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery (Otolaryngology), University of Melbourne, Australia
J Bailey
Affiliation:
Department of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Australia
G Kennedy
Affiliation:
Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Australia
S O'Leary
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery (Otolaryngology), University of Melbourne, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Sudanthi Wijewickrema, Department of Surgery (Otolaryngology), University of Melbourne, Level 5, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32, Gisborne Street, East Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia Fax: +61 3 9663 1958 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To investigate the effectiveness and usability of automated procedural guidance during virtual temporal bone surgery.

Methods:

Two randomised controlled trials were performed to evaluate the effectiveness, for medical students, of two presentation modalities of automated real-time procedural guidance in virtual reality simulation: full and step-by-step visual presentation of drillable areas. Presentation modality effectiveness was determined through a comparison of participants’ dissection quality, evaluated by a blinded otologist, using a validated assessment scale.

Results:

While the provision of automated guidance on procedure improved performance (full presentation, p = 0.03; step-by-step presentation, p < 0.001), usage of the two different presentation modalities was vastly different (full presentation, 3.73 per cent; step-by-step presentation, 60.40 per cent).

Conclusion:

Automated procedural guidance in virtual temporal bone surgery is effective in improving trainee performance. Step-by-step presentation of procedural guidance was engaging, and therefore more likely to be used by the participants.

Keywords

Virtual RealityComputer SimulationTemporal BoneSurgerySimulation Training
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 3 , March 2018 , pp. 257 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented at the 14th Australasian Auditory Neuroscience Workshop, 4 December 2016, Hobart, Australia.

References

1 Hammoud, MM, Nuthalapaty, FS, Goepfert, AR, Casey, PM, Emmons, S, Espey, EL et al. To the point: medical education review of the role of simulators in surgical training. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:338–43Google Scholar
2 Reznick, RK, MacRae, H. Teaching surgical skills--changes in the wind. Med Educ 2006;355:2664–9Google Scholar
3 Rhienmora, P, Haddawy, P, Suebnukarn, S, Dailey, MN. Intelligent dental training simulator with objective skill assessment and feedback. Artif Intell Med 2011;52:115–21Google Scholar
4 Fried, MP, Satava, R, Weghorst, S, Gallagher, AG, Sasaki, C, Ross, D et al. Identifying and reducing errors with surgical simulation. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13(suppl 1):i19–26 Google Scholar
5 Zhou, Y, Bailey, J, Ioannou, I, Wijewickrema, S, Kennedy, G, O'Leary, S. Constructive real time feedback for a temporal bone simulator. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2013;16(Pt 3):315–22Google ScholarPubMed
6 Zhou, Y, Bailey, J, Ioannou, I, Wijewickrema, SN, O'Leary, S, Kennedy, G. Pattern-based real-time feedback for a temporal bone simulator. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 2013;7–16 Google Scholar
7 Wijewickrema, S, Piromchai, P, Zhou, Y, Ioannou, I, Bailey, J, Kennedy, G et al. Developing effective automated feedback in temporal bone surgery simulation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;152:1082–8Google Scholar
8 Hatala, R, Cook, DA, Zendejas, B, Hamstra, SJ, Brydges, R. Feedback for simulation-based procedural skills training: a meta-analysis and critical narrative synthesis. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2014;19:251–72Google Scholar
9 Stefanidis, D, Korndorffer, JR, Heniford, BT, Scott, DJ. Limited feedback and video tutorials optimize learning and resource utilization during laparoscopic simulator training. Surgery 2007;142:202–6Google Scholar
10 Scott, DJ, Goova, MT, Tesfay, ST. A cost-effective proficiency-based knot-tying and suturing curriculum for residency programs. J Surg Res 2007;141:7–15 Google Scholar
11 Lamata, P, Enrique, J, Bello, F, Kneebone, RL, Aggarwal, R. Conceptual framework for laparoscopic VR simulators. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 2006;26:69–79 Google Scholar
12 Crossan, A, Brewster, S, Reid, S, Mellor, D. Multimodal feedback cues to aid veterinary training simulations. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Haptic Human-Computer Interaction. London: Academic Press, 2000;45–9Google Scholar
13 Passmore, PJ, Nielsen, CF, Cosh, W, Darzi, A. Effects of viewing and orientation on path following in a medical teleoperation environment. Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2001;209–15Google Scholar
14 Botden, SM, de Hingh, IH, Jakimowicz, JJ. Meaningful assessment method for laparoscopic suturing training in augmented reality. Surg Endosc 2009;23:2221–8Google Scholar
15 Butler, NN, Wiet, GJ. Reliability of the Welling scale (WS1) for rating temporal bone dissection performance. Laryngoscope 2007;117:1803–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16 McDougall, EM. Validation of surgical simulators. J Endourol 2007;21:244–7Google Scholar
17 Strandbygaard, J, Bjerrum, F, Maagaard, M, Winkel, P, Larsen, CR, Ringsted, C et al. Instructor feedback versus no instructor feedback on performance in a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 2013;257:839–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Kruglikova, I, Grantcharov, TP, Drewes, AM, Funch-Jensen, P. The impact of constructive feedback on training in gastrointestinal endoscopy using high-fidelity virtual-reality simulation: a randomised controlled trial. Gut 2010;59:181–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19 Xeroulis, GJ, Park, J, Moulton, CA, Reznick, RK, LeBlanc, V, Dubrowski, A. Teaching suturing and knot-tying skills to medical students: a randomized controlled study comparing computer-based video instruction and (concurrent and summary) expert feedback. Surgery 2007;141:442–9Google Scholar
20 Walsh, CM, Ling, SC, Wang, CS, Carnahan, H. Concurrent versus terminal feedback: it may be better to wait. Acad Med 2009;84(10 suppl):S54–7Google Scholar
21 Chang, JY, Chang, GL, Chien, CJ, Chung, KC, Hsu, AT. Effectiveness of two forms of feedback on training of a joint mobilization skill by using a joint translation simulator. Phys Ther 2007;87:418–30Google Scholar
22 Wulf, G, Shea, CH. Understanding the role of augmented feedback: the good, the bad and the ugly. In: Williams, AM, Hodges, NJ, eds. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2004;121–44Google Scholar
23 Salmoni, AW, Schmidt, RA, Walter, CB. Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychol Bull 1984;95:355–86Google Scholar
24 Sweller, J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci 1988;12:257–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 Kirschner, PA. Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learn Instr 2002;12:1–10 Google Scholar
26 Ericsson, KA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 2004;79:S70–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Cox, M, Irby, DM, Reznick, RK, MacRae, H. Teaching surgical skills – changes in the wind. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2664–9Google Scholar
28 Wijewickrema, S, Zhou, Y, Bailey, J, Kennedy, G, O'Leary, S. Provision of automated step-by-step procedural guidance in virtual reality surgery simulation. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 2016;69–72Google Scholar