What is the Current State of Extended Reality Use in Otolaryngology Training? A Scoping Review

Abstract

Objective To map current literature on the educational use of extended reality (XR) in Otolaryngology‐Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) to inform teaching and research. Study Design Scoping Review. Methods A scoping review was conducted, identifying literature through MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science databases. Findings were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for scoping review checklist. Studies were included if they involved OHNS trainees or medical students who used XR for an educational purpose in OHNS. XR was defined as: fully‐immersive virtual reality (VR) using head‐mounted displays (HMDs), non‐immersive and semi‐immersive VR, augmented reality (AR), or mixed reality (MR). Data on device use were extracted, and educational outcomes were analyzed according to Kirkpatrick's evaluation framework. Results Of the 1,434 unique abstracts identified, 40 articles were included. All articles reported on VR; none discussed AR or MR. Twenty‐nine articles were categorized as semi‐immersive, none used occlusive HMDs therefore, none met modern definitions of immersive VR. Most studies (29 of 40) targeted temporal bone surgery. Using the Kirkpatrick four‐level evaluation model, all studies were limited to level‐1 (learner reaction) or level‐2 (knowledge or skill performance). Conclusions Current educational applications of XR in OHNS are limited to VR, do not fully immerse participants and do not assess higher‐level learning outcomes. The educational OHNS community would benefit from a shared definition for VR technology, assessment of skills transfer (level‐3 and higher), and deliberate testing of AR, MR, and procedures beyond temporal bone surgery. Laryngoscope, 133:227–234, 2023

Advancing Education Through Extended Reality and Internet of Everything Enabled Metaverses: Applications, Challenges, and Open Issues

“…Koo et al [69] Lung cancer surgery training Smart operating room Reflecting on the haptic inputs of the surgeon's tactile sensations provides training. Zagury et al [70] Otolaryngology training Evaluation framework. Educational outcomes and skills transfer in bone surgery were analyzed.…”

Augmented and Virtual Reality Applications in Facial Plastic Surgery: A Scoping Review

“…For instance, VR may allow for enhanced preoperative planning or 3D visualization of anatomical abnormalities, while AR might one day be used routinely for intraoperative navigation. While reviews on these technologies exist for such fields as plastic surgery, [4][5][6][7][8][9] otolaryngology, [10][11][12] neurosurgery, 13,14 and oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS), 15,16 to our knowledge, no review article exists specific to facial plastic and reconstructive surgery (FPRS). This scoping review serves to describe the current landscape of XR as it pertains to FPRS.…”

In Reference to Mixed Reality Enhanced Otolaryngology Case‐Based Learning: A Randomized Educational Study

“…1 The study by Gnanasegaram et al 2 was cited to support the authors' opinion that Hololens MR device has been proven useful in ear anatomy education. However, Gnanasegaram et al 2 stated that Hololens is an AR (not MR) device and that it simply superimposed digital on real objects, without interaction ("No gesture interactions were implemented").Zagury-Orly et al 3 who recently performed a scoping review regarding extended reality technologies in otolaryngology training, defined AR as a technology, which overlays virtual objects onto real ones, but the user, according to the authors, can only interact with the virtual environment. Thus, a disagreement between definitions provided by Malik et al 1 and Zagury-Orly et al 3 can be noted.…”

“…Zagury-Orly et al 3 who recently performed a scoping review regarding extended reality technologies in otolaryngology training, defined AR as a technology, which overlays virtual objects onto real ones, but the user, according to the authors, can only interact with the virtual environment. Thus, a disagreement between definitions provided by Malik et al 1 and Zagury-Orly et al 3 can be noted.…”