{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Using Virtual Reality to teach ultrasound-guided needling skills for regional anaesthesia: A randomised controlled trial.
{Author}: Chuan A;Bogdanovych A;Moran B;Chowdhury S;Lim YC;Tran MT;Lee TY;Duong J;Qian J;Bui T;Chua AMH;Jeyaratnam B;Siu S;Tiong C;McKendrick M;McLeod GA;
{Journal}: J Clin Anesth
{Volume}: 97
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Jun 17
{Factor}: 9.375
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111535
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>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).<BR><B>METHODS: </B>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.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>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.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>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.