Towards Virtual VATS, Face, and Construct Evaluation for Peg Transfer Training of Box, VR, AR, and MR Trainer

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop and assess the peg transfer training module face, content and construct validation use of the box, virtual reality (VR), cognitive virtual reality (CVR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) trainer, thereby to compare advantages and disadvantages of these simulators. Training system (VatsSim-XR) design includes customized haptic-enabled thoracoscopic instruments, virtual reality helmet set, endoscope kit with navigation, and the patient-specific corresponding training environment. A cohort of 32 trainees comprising 24 novices and 8 experts underwent the real and virtual simulators that were conducted in the department of thoracic surgery of Yunnan First People's Hospital. Both subjective and objective evaluations have been developed to explore the visual and haptic potential promotions in peg transfer education. Experiments and evaluation results conducted by both professional and novice thoracic surgeons show that the surgery skills from experts are better than novices overall, AR trainer is able to provide a more balanced training environments on visuohaptic fidelity and accuracy, box trainer and MR trainer demonstrated the best realism 3D perception and surgical immersive performance, respectively, and CVR trainer shows a better clinic effect that the traditional VR trainer. Combining these in a systematic approach, tuned with specific fidelity requirements, medical simulation systems would be able to provide a more immersive and effective training environment.

Augmented, Mixed, and Virtual Reality-Based Head-Mounted Devices for Medical Education: Systematic Review

“…The medical procedures described across studies varied widely. Studies in surgery included training in neurosurgery [ 43 ], gastrectomy [ 2 ], total hip arthroplasty [ 35 , 37 ], laparoscopy [ 44 ], dental surgery [ 32 , 45 ], surgical ophthalmoscopy [ 33 ], peg transfer practice [ 46 ], or surgical knot training [ 47 ] and central line and catheter insertion [ 48 , 49 ]. Anatomy teaching was covered in 4 (15%) studies, 3 of which involved 3D learning structures in neuroanatomy [ 39 , 50 , 51 ], such as training on the brain cerebrum.…”

“…Peden et al [ 33 ] tested HMDs for the learning of suture skills by medical students, whereby standard face-to-face instruction compared to HMDs showed similar skills outcomes (device: Google Glass). Qin et al [ 46 ] compared simulators and a variety of XR devices for peg transfer training (devices: HTC Vive, Samsung Gear). Overall, medical simulation systems contributed to a more immersive and successful training environment for peg transfer [ 46 ].…”

“…Out of the 27 studies, 18 (67%) were identified that focused on skills outcomes [2,30,31,33,[35][36][37][38]40,41,[44][45][46][47][48][49]53,56].…”

“…Studies based their findings on improving and enhancing HMDs. XR-based HMDs are currently dominantly used in high-income countries; only 2 [46,53] studies were conducted in LMICs. Nevertheless, HMDs may be particularly beneficial in a low-resource context to provide training for direly needed health care workers based on their versatile, mobile, and immersive nature.…”

Ambidextrous learning of engineering project team: Relying on control or BIM AI VR AR MR?

“…25 AR: That is, augmented reality technology platform, for example, building drawings are reviewed in advance for parametric modeling and visualization of three-dimensional models, which facilitates project partners to organize collaborative inspection of various specialties, facilitates timely communication and communication among specialties, avoids on-site construction conflicts, and reduces rework phenomenon. 26 MR: The hybrid reality technology platform creates a virtual scene that can enter real life and recognize you at the same time. For example, through MR equipment, you can see a scene in your eyes that can measure the scale and orientation of objects in real life.…”