Advertisement

Is actual surgical experience reflected in virtual reality simulation surgery for a femoral neck fracture?

  • Yasuhiro HommaEmail author
  • Atsuhiko Mogami
  • Tomonori Baba
  • Kiyohito Naito
  • Taiji Watari
  • Osamu Obayashi
  • Kazuo Kaneko
Original Article • HIP - FRACTURES
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

A virtual reality simulator developed for orthopaedic and trauma surgical training has been introduced. However, it is unclear whether the experiences of actual surgery are reflected in virtual reality simulation surgery (VRSS) using a simulator. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the results in VRSS differ between a trauma expert and a trauma novice.

Methods

In Group A (expert), there are ten orthopaedic trauma surgeons and in Group B (novice) ten residents within 2 years after medical school graduation. VRSS for a femoral neck fracture using Hansson hook-pins (Test 1) and Hansson twin hook plate (Test 2) was performed. The parameters evaluated were total procedure time (s), fluoroscopy time (s), number of times X-ray was used (defined by the number of times the foot pedal was used), number of retries in guide placement, and final implant position.

Results

In Test 1, the averages of four parameters (distance to posterior cortex (p = 0.009), distal pin distance above lesser trochanter (p = 0.015), distal pin hook angular error (p = 0.004), and distal pin tip distance to centre (lateral) (p = 0.015)) were significantly different between Groups A and B. In Test 2, no parameters in a mean were significantly different between groups, but seven parameters in a variance (guide wire distance to joint surface (p = 0.0191), twin hook length outside barrel (p = 0.011), twin hook tip distance to centre (lateral) (p = 0.042), twin hook distance to centre of lateral cortex (lateral) (p = 0.016), plate end alignment error (lateral) (p = 0.027), guide wire angle with lateral cortex (front) (p = 0.024), and 3.2-mm drill outside cortex (p = 0.000)) were significantly different between groups. In Test 1, Group B showed significantly longer fluoroscopy time than Group A (p = 0.044). In Test 2, Group B showed significantly fewer instances of X-ray use than Group A (p = 0.046).

Conclusions

Our study showed that the experiences of actual surgery are reflected in the result of VRSS using the simulator.

Keywords

Virtual reality Simulation surgery Femoral neck fracture 

Abbreviation

VRSS

Virtual reality simulation surgery

Notes

Authors’ contributions

YH involved in analysis and interpretation, and writing the article, AM contributed to conception, design, data collection, TB took part in analysis and interpretation, and writing the article, KN involved in analysis and interpretation, and writing the article, TW involved in analysis and interpretation, and writing the article, OO contributed to design, analysis, interpretation, and KK took part in design, analysis, interpretation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

No funds were received in support of this study. No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was not required for this simulation-based intervention.

References

  1. 1.
    Wallace L, Raison N, Ghumman F, Moran A, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K (2017) Cognitive training: how can it be adapted for surgical education? Surg 15(4):231–239Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atesok K, Satava RM, Marsh JL, Hurwitz SR (2017) Measuring surgical skills in simulation-based training. JAAOS J Am Acad Orthop Surg 25(10):665–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson PA (2019) 3D printing for education and surgical planning in orthopedic surgery. 3D printing in orthopaedic surgery. Elsevier, 2019. pp 55–63Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hollier JM, Wilson SD (2017) No variation in patient care outcomes after implementation of resident shift work duty hour limitations and a hospitalist model system. Am J Med Qual 32(1):27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quillin RC III, Cortez AR, Pritts TA, Hanseman DJ, Edwards MJ, Davis BR (2016) Operative variability among residents has increased since implementation of the 80-hour workweek. J Am Coll Surg 222(6):1201–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hirschl RB (2015) The making of a surgeon: 10,000 hours? J Pediatr Surg 50(5):699–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rynecki ND, Coban D, Gantz O, Gupta R, Ayyaswami V, Prabhu AV, Ruskin J, Lin SS, Beebe KS (2018) Medical malpractice in orthopedic surgery: a Westlaw-based demographic analysis. Orthopedics 41(5):e615–e620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daniels AH, Ruttiman R, Eltorai AEM, DePasse JM, Brea BA, Palumbo MA (2017) Malpractice litigation following spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 27(4):470–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stirling ER, Lewis TL, Ferran NA (2014) Surgical skills simulation in trauma and orthopaedic training. J Orthop Surg Res 9:126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alaker M, Wynn GR, Arulampalam T (2016) Virtual reality training in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review & meta-analysis. Int J Surg 29:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    White I, Buchberg B, Tsikitis VL, Herzig DO, Vetto JT, Lu KC (2014) A virtual reality endoscopic simulator augments general surgery resident cancer education as measured by performance improvement. J Cancer Educ 29(2):333–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gasperin BDM, Zanirati T, Cavazzola LT (2018) Can virtual reality be as good as operating room training? experience from a residency program in general surgery. Arq Bras de Cir Dig 31(4):e1397.  https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-672020180001e1397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Akhtar K, Sugand K, Sperrin M, Cobb J, Standfield N, Gupte C (2015) Training safer orthopedic surgeons. Construct validation of a virtual-reality simulator for hip fracture surgery. Acta Orthop 86(5):616–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pedersen P, Palm H, Ringsted C, Konge L (2014) Virtual-reality simulation to assess performance in hip fracture surgery. Acta Orthop 85(4):403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blyth P, Stott NS, Anderson IA (2007) A simulation-based training system for hip fracture fixation for use within the hospital environment. Injury 38(10):1197–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Palm H, Jacobsen S, Krasheninnikoff M, Foss NB, Kehlet H, Gebuhr P (2007) Influence of surgeon’s experience and supervision on re-operation rate after hip fracture surgery. Injury 38(7):775–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leblanc J, Hutchison C, Hu Y, Donnon T (2013) A comparison of orthopaedic resident performance on surgical fixation of an ulnar fracture using virtual reality and synthetic models. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 95(9):e601–e606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee K, Lee KM, Park MS, Lee B, Kwon DG, Chung CY (2012) Measurements of surgeons’ exposure to ionizing radiation dose during intraoperative use of C-arm fluoroscopy. Spine 37(14):1240–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khanduja V, Lawrence JE, Audenaert E (2017) Testing the construct validity of a virtual reality hip arthroscopy simulator. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 33(3):566–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roberts PG, Guyver P, Baldwin M, Akhtar K, Alvand A, Price AJ, Rees JL (2017) Validation of the updated ArthroS simulator: face and construct validity of a passive haptic virtual reality simulator with novel performance metrics. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(2):616–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rebolledo BJ, Hammann-Scala J, Leali A, Ranawat AS (2015) Arthroscopy skills development with a surgical simulator: a comparative study in orthopaedic surgery residents. Am J Sports Med 43(6):1526–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cannon WD, Garrett WE Jr, Hunter RE, Sweeney HJ, Eckhoff DG, Nicandri GT, Hutchinson MR, Johnson DD, Bisson LJ, Bedi A, Hill JA, Koh JL, Reinig KD (2014) Improving residency training in arthroscopic knee surgery with use of a virtual-reality simulator: a randomized blinded study. JBJS 96(21):1798–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chou LB, Chandran S, Harris AH, Tung J, Butler LM (2012) Increased breast cancer prevalence among female orthopedic surgeons. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 21(6):683–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mohan AK, Hauptmann M, Linet MS, Ron E, Lubin JH, Freedman DM et al (2002) Breast cancer mortality among female radiologic technologists in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(12):943–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yoshinaga S, Mabuchi K, Sigurdson A, Doody MM, Ron E (2004) Cancer risks among radiologists and radiographic technologists: review of epidemiologic studies. Radiology 233(2):313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryJuntendo UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryJuntendo University Shizuoka HospitalIzunokuniJapan

Personalised recommendations