Using Virtual Reality to teach ultrasound-guided needling skills for regional anaesthesia: A randomised controlled trial

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using Virtual Reality to teach ultrasound-guided needling skills for regional anaesthesia

T2 - A randomised controlled trial

AU - Chuan, Alwin

AU - Bogdanovych, Anton

AU - Moran, Benjamin

AU - Chowdhury, Supriya

AU - Lim, Yean Chin

AU - Tran, Minh T

AU - Lee, Tsz Yui

AU - Duong, Jayden

AU - Qian, Jennifer

AU - Bui, Tung

AU - Chua, Alex M H

AU - Jeyaratnam, Bahaven

AU - Siu, Steven

AU - Tiong, Clement

AU - McKendrick, Mel

AU - McLeod, Graeme

N1 - © 2024 The Authors

PY - 2024/10

Y1 - 2024/10

N2 - STUDY OBJECTIVE: We previously designed and validated a virtual reality-based simulator to help train novices in ultrasound-guided needling skills necessary for safe and competent ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia. This study was designed to compare the performance and error rates of novices trained by a human faculty aided with the assistance of this virtual reality simulator (virtual reality-assisted training), versus novices trained wholly by humans (conventional training).DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this single centre, randomised controlled study, we used a standardised teaching protocol, rigorous blinding, iterative training of assessors, and validated global rating scale and composite error score checklists to assess skills learning of novice participants.MAIN RESULTS: We recruited 45 novices and scored 270 assessments of performance and error rates. Inter-rater correlation coefficient of reliability of scoring between assessors for the global rating scale was 0.84 (95%CI 0.68-0.92) and for the composite error score checklist was 0.87 (95%CI 0.73-0.93). After adjustment for age, sex, Depression, Anxiety and Stress-21, and baseline score, there was no statistical difference for virtual reality-assisted training compared to conventional training in final global rating score (average treatment effect -3.30 (95%CI-13.07-6.48), p = 0.51) or in the final composite error score (average treatment effect 1.14 (95%CI -0.60-2.88), p = 0.20). Realism in the virtual reality simulator was similar to real-life when measured by the Presence Questionnaire, all components p > 0.79; and task workload assessed by the NASA-Task Load Index was not statistically different between groups, average treatment effect 5.02 (95%CI -3.51-13.54), p = 0.25. Results were achieved in the virtual reality-assisted group with half the human faculty involvement.CONCLUSION: Novices trained using a hybrid, virtual reality-assisted teaching program showed no superiority to novices trained using a conventional teaching program, but with less burden on teaching resources.

AB - STUDY OBJECTIVE: We previously designed and validated a virtual reality-based simulator to help train novices in ultrasound-guided needling skills necessary for safe and competent ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia. This study was designed to compare the performance and error rates of novices trained by a human faculty aided with the assistance of this virtual reality simulator (virtual reality-assisted training), versus novices trained wholly by humans (conventional training).DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this single centre, randomised controlled study, we used a standardised teaching protocol, rigorous blinding, iterative training of assessors, and validated global rating scale and composite error score checklists to assess skills learning of novice participants.MAIN RESULTS: We recruited 45 novices and scored 270 assessments of performance and error rates. Inter-rater correlation coefficient of reliability of scoring between assessors for the global rating scale was 0.84 (95%CI 0.68-0.92) and for the composite error score checklist was 0.87 (95%CI 0.73-0.93). After adjustment for age, sex, Depression, Anxiety and Stress-21, and baseline score, there was no statistical difference for virtual reality-assisted training compared to conventional training in final global rating score (average treatment effect -3.30 (95%CI-13.07-6.48), p = 0.51) or in the final composite error score (average treatment effect 1.14 (95%CI -0.60-2.88), p = 0.20). Realism in the virtual reality simulator was similar to real-life when measured by the Presence Questionnaire, all components p > 0.79; and task workload assessed by the NASA-Task Load Index was not statistically different between groups, average treatment effect 5.02 (95%CI -3.51-13.54), p = 0.25. Results were achieved in the virtual reality-assisted group with half the human faculty involvement.CONCLUSION: Novices trained using a hybrid, virtual reality-assisted teaching program showed no superiority to novices trained using a conventional teaching program, but with less burden on teaching resources.

KW - Medical education

KW - Regional anaesthesia

KW - Ultrasonography

KW - Ultrasound

KW - Virtual reality

UR - https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=pure_staging_and_production&SrcAuth=WosAPI&KeyUT=WOS:001260085100001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85196185266

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111535

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111535

M3 - Article

C2 - 38889487

SN - 0952-8180

VL - 97

JO - Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

JF - Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

M1 - 111535

ER -