Scholarlink

Purpose <p>We developed an interventional radiology (IR) simulator using a virtual reality system (the VR–IR simulator) to teach IR procedures to medical students. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of this teaching method.</p> Materials and methods <p>All ninety-nine fifth-year medical students attended a conventional classroom lecture. To teach students the actual procedure, they were randomly divided into two groups: One received conventional verbal explanations and educator demonstrations (the conventional group [<i>n</i> = 44]), and the other received VR–IR simulator training (the VR–IR simulator group [<i>n</i> = 55]). Afterward, they underwent a test using an augmented reality- (AR-) IR simulator (the VIST<sup>®</sup> G5 image-guided AR–IR simulator, Mentice, Gothenburg, Sweden). The total procedure time, amount of contrast media used, fluoroscopic time, and patient peak skin dose in the simulated patients were compared between groups. A board-certified radiologist evaluated ten aspects of the procedure technique using a 5-point Likert scale (total: 50 points).</p> Results <p>Two students in the VR–IR simulator group were excluded due to VR sickness and simulator malfunction. There were no significant differences between the VR–IR simulator group and the conventional group regarding total procedure time (median [25–75% interquartile range]: 13.5 [11.8–14.5] vs. 14.3 [12.3–16.8] minutes, <i>p</i> = 0.11), fluoroscopic time (10.1 [8.5–13.0] vs. 11.0 [8.6–13.7] minutes, <i>p</i> = 0.31), and patient peak skin dose (276 [243–373] vs. 303 [239–395] mGy, <i>p</i> = 0.57), respectively. However, the amount of contrast media used was significantly lower (28.0 [21.0–36.2] vs. 40.0 [32.3–50.9] mL, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) and the technical achievement scores by the radiologist (36 [34–44] vs. 31 [29–32], <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) were significantly higher in the VR–IR simulator group.</p> Conclusion <p>The VR–IR simulator helped reduce the amount of contrast media in interventional procedures and improved technical achievement scores.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effectiveness of a virtual reality-based interventional radiology simulator for medical student education

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月29日

查看全文
  • Hidenori Mitani,
  • Yukiko Honda,
  • Keigo Narita,
  • Yuko Nakamura,
  • Shintaro Morishita,
  • Shota Kondo,
  • Shogo Maeda,
  • Haruka Higashibori,
  • Keigo Chosa,
  • Toru Higaki,
  • Ikuo Kawashita,
  • Minoru Hattori,
  • Naoko Hasunuma,
  • Isamu Saeki,
  • Shinya Takahashi,
  • Naoki Mihara,
  • Kazuo Awai

摘要

Purpose

We developed an interventional radiology (IR) simulator using a virtual reality system (the VR–IR simulator) to teach IR procedures to medical students. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of this teaching method.

Materials and methods

All ninety-nine fifth-year medical students attended a conventional classroom lecture. To teach students the actual procedure, they were randomly divided into two groups: One received conventional verbal explanations and educator demonstrations (the conventional group [n = 44]), and the other received VR–IR simulator training (the VR–IR simulator group [n = 55]). Afterward, they underwent a test using an augmented reality- (AR-) IR simulator (the VIST® G5 image-guided AR–IR simulator, Mentice, Gothenburg, Sweden). The total procedure time, amount of contrast media used, fluoroscopic time, and patient peak skin dose in the simulated patients were compared between groups. A board-certified radiologist evaluated ten aspects of the procedure technique using a 5-point Likert scale (total: 50 points).

Results

Two students in the VR–IR simulator group were excluded due to VR sickness and simulator malfunction. There were no significant differences between the VR–IR simulator group and the conventional group regarding total procedure time (median [25–75% interquartile range]: 13.5 [11.8–14.5] vs. 14.3 [12.3–16.8] minutes, p = 0.11), fluoroscopic time (10.1 [8.5–13.0] vs. 11.0 [8.6–13.7] minutes, p = 0.31), and patient peak skin dose (276 [243–373] vs. 303 [239–395] mGy, p = 0.57), respectively. However, the amount of contrast media used was significantly lower (28.0 [21.0–36.2] vs. 40.0 [32.3–50.9] mL, p < 0.01) and the technical achievement scores by the radiologist (36 [34–44] vs. 31 [29–32], p < 0.01) were significantly higher in the VR–IR simulator group.

Conclusion

The VR–IR simulator helped reduce the amount of contrast media in interventional procedures and improved technical achievement scores.