Methods: This was a prospective educational study with comparison with historical controls (reference cohort). At a temporal bone dissection course, eighteen participants performed structured self-assessment during three hours of VR simulation training of mastoidectomy before proceeding to cadaver dissection/surgery (intervention cohort). At a previous course, eighteen participants received similar VR simulation training but without the structured self-assessment (reference cohort). Final products from VR simulation and cadaveric dissection were video-recorded and assessed by two blinded raters using a 19-point modified Welling Scale.

Results: The intervention cohort completed fewer procedures (average 4.2) during VR simulation training than the reference cohort (average 5.7). Nevertheless, the intervention cohort achieved a significantly higher average dissection score both in VR simulation (11.1 points, 95% CI [10.6–11.5]) and subsequent cadaveric dissection (11.8 points, 95% CI [10.7–12.8]) compared with the reference cohort who scored 9.1 points (95% CI [8.7–9.5]) during VR simulation and 5.8 points (95% CI [4.8–6.8]) during cadaveric dissection.

Conclusion: Structured self-assessment is a valuable learning support during self-directed VR simulation training of mastoidectomy and the positive effect on performance transfers to subsequent cadaveric dissection performance.

Objective: Mastoidectomy is a cornerstone in the surgical management of middle and inner ear diseases. Unfortunately, training is challenged by insufficient access to human cadavers. Three-dimensional (3D) printing of temporal bones could alleviate this problem, but evidence on their educational effectiveness is lacking. It is largely unknown whether training on 3D-printed temporal bones improves mastoidectomy performance, including on cadavers, and how this training compares with virtual reality (VR) simulation. To address this knowledge gap, this study investigated whether training on 3D-printed temporal bones improves cadaveric dissection performance, and it compared this training with the already-established VR simulation.

Study design: Prospective cohort study of an educational intervention.

Setting: Tertiary university hospital, cadaver dissection laboratory, and simulation center in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Methods: Eighteen otorhinolaryngology residents (intervention) attending the national temporal bone dissection course received 3 hours of mastoidectomy training on 3D-printed temporal bones. Posttraining cadaver mastoidectomy performances were rated by 3 experts using a validated assessment tool and compared with those of 66 previous course participants (control) who had received time-equivalent VR training prior to dissection.

Results: The intervention cohort outperformed the controls during cadaver dissection by 29% (P < .001); their performances were largely similar across training modalities but remained at a modest level (~50% of the maximum score).

Conclusion: Mastoidectomy skills improved from training on 3D-printed temporal bone and seemingly more so than on time-equivalent VR simulation. Importantly, these skills transferred to cadaveric dissection. Training on 3D-printed temporal bones can effectively supplement cadaver training when learning mastoidectomy.

Keywords: 3D printing; additive manufacturing; education; mastoidectomy; neurotology; otology; rapid prototyping; surgical simulation; temporal bone; training.

Background: In cochlear implantation (CI), excellent surgical technique is critical for hearing outcomes. Recent advances in temporal bone Virtual Reality (VR) training allow for specific training of CI and through introduction of new digital microscopes with ultra-high-fidelity (UHF) graphics. This study aims to investigate whether UHF increases performance in VR simulation training of CI electrode insertion compared with conventional, screen-based VR (cVR).

Methods: Twenty-four medical students completed a randomized, controlled trial of an educational intervention. They performed a total of eight CI electrode insertions each in blocks of four using either UHF-VR or cVR, in randomized order. CI electrode insertion performances were rated by two blinded expert raters using a structured assessment tool supported by validity evidence.

Results: Performance scores in cVR were higher than in the UHF-VR simulation although this was not significant (19.8 points, 95% CI [19.3-20.3] vs. 18.8 points, 95% CI [18.2-19.4]; P = 0.09). The decisive factor for performance was participants’ ability to achieve stereovision (mean difference = 1.1 points, 95% CI [0.15-2.08], P = 0.02).

Discussion: No additional benefit was found from UHF-VR over cVR training of CI electrode insertion for novices. Consequently, standard cVR simulation should be used for novices’ basic skills acquisition in CI surgery. Future studies should instead explore the effects of other improvements in CI surgery training and if the lacking benefit of UHF-VR also applies for more experienced learners.

Conclusion: The increased graphical perception and the superior lifelikeness of UHF-VR does not improve early skills acquisition of CI insertion for novices.

Keywords: Cochlear implantation; Simulation-based surgical training; Virtual reality simulation.

Methods: Prospective, single-arm trial. Twenty-four novice medical students completed a pre-training CI inserting test on a commercially available pre-drilled 3D-printed temporal bone. A training program of 18 VR simulation CI procedures was completed in the Visual Ear Simulator over four sessions. Finally, a post-training test similar to the pre-training test was completed. Two blinded experts rated performances using the validated Cochlear Implant Surgery Assessment Tool (CISAT). Performance scores were analyzed using linear mixed models.

Results: Learning curves were highly individual with primary performance improvement initially, and small but steady improvements throughout the 18 procedures. CI VR simulation performance improved 33% (p < 0.001). Insertion performance on a 3D-printed temporal bone improved 21% (p < 0.001), demonstrating skills transfer.

Discussion: VR SBT of CI surgery improves novices’ performance. It is useful for introducing the procedure and acquiring basic skills. CI surgery training should pivot on objective performance assessment for reaching pre-defined competency before cadaver – or real-life surgery. Simulation-based training provides a structured and safe learning environment for initial training.

Conclusion: CI surgery skills improve from VR SBT, which can be used to learn the fundamentals of CI surgery.

Method: Twenty-four medical students were randomised in two groups and performed 15 mastoidectomies on a distributed virtual reality simulator as practice. The intervention group received additional summative metrics-based feedback; the control group followed standard instructions. Two to three months after training, participants performed a retention test without learning supports.

Results: The intervention group had a better final-product score (mean difference = 1.0 points; p = 0.001) and metrics-based score (mean difference = 12.7; p < 0.001). At retention, the metrics-based score for the intervention group remained superior (mean difference = 6.9 per cent; p = 0.02). Also at the retention, cognitive load was higher in the intervention group (mean difference = 10.0 per cent; p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Summative metrics-based feedback improved performance and lead to a safer and faster performance compared with standard instructions and seems a valuable educational tool in the early acquisition of temporal bone skills.

Purpose: At graduation from medical school, competency in otoscopy is often insufficient. Simulation-based training can be used to improve technical skills, but the suitability of the training model and assessment must be supported by validity evidence. The purpose of this study was to collect content validity evidence for a simulation-based test of handheld otoscopy skills.

Methods: First, a three-round Delphi study was conducted with a panel of nine clinical teachers in otorhinolaryngology (ORL) to determine the content requirements in our educational context. Next, the authenticity of relevant cases in a commercially available technology-enhanced simulator (Earsi, VR Magic, Germany) was evaluated by specialists in ORL. Finally, an integrated course was developed for the simulator based on these results.

Results: The Delphi study resulted in nine essential diagnoses of normal variations and pathologies that all junior doctors should be able to diagnose with a handheld otoscope. Twelve out of 15 tested simulator cases were correctly recognized by at least one ORL specialist. Fifteen cases from the simulator case library matched the essential diagnoses determined by the Delphi study and were integrated into the course.

Conclusion: Content validity evidence for a simulation-based test of handheld otoscopy skills was collected. This informed a simulation-based course that can be used for undergraduate training. The course needs to be further investigated in relation to other aspects of validity and for future self-directed training.

Methods: Two cohorts of novice medical students were recruited for distributed virtual simulation training (five practice blocks of three procedures): 16 participants received intermittent simulator-integrated tutoring and 14 participants served as a reference cohort and did not receive simulator-integrated tutoring. Cognitive load during simulation was estimated using secondary task reaction time. Linear mixed models were used to account for repeated measurements.

Results: Overall, the tutored cohort had a significantly higher cognitive load than the reference cohort (mean difference = 7 %, p=0.006). Simulator-integrated tutoring did seem to lower cognitive load when active but also caused the tutored cohort to have a substantially higher cognitive load in subsequent performances where it was turned off (mean difference = 7 %, respectively, p<<0.001).

Conclusions: Concurrent feedback by simulator-integrated tutoring causes tutoring over-reliance and modifies cognitive load. This suggests that tutoring, in addition to degrading motor skills learning also affects the cognitive processes involved.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, controlled cohort study.

SETTING: Otorhinolaryngology (ORL) teaching hospitals and the Danish national TB course.

PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight ORL residents: 20 in the intervention cohort (decentralized training) and 18 in the control cohort (standard training during course).

INTERVENTION: Three months of access to decentralized VR simulation training at the local ORL department or the trainee’s home. A freeware VR simulator (the visible ear simulator [VES]) was used, supplemented by a range of learning supports for directed, self-regulated learning.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mastoidectomy final-product scores from the VR simulations and cadaver dissection were rated using a modified Welling Scale by blinded expert raters.

RESULTS: Participants in the intervention cohort trained decentrally a median of 3.5 hours and performed significantly better than the control cohort during VR simulation (p < 0.01), which importantly also transferred to a 76% higher performance score during subsequent cadaver training (mean scores: 8.8 versus 5.0 points; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Decentralized VR simulation training of mastoidectomy improves subsequent cadaver dissection performance and can potentially improve implementation of VR simulation surgical training.

METHODS: A prospective, educational cohort study of a learning intervention (simulator-integrated tutoring) during repeated and distributed VR simulation training for directed, self-regulated learning of the mastoidectomy procedure. Two cohorts of novices (medical students) were recruited: 16 participants were trained using the intervention program (intermittent simulator-integrated tutoring) and 14 participants constituted a non-tutored reference cohort. Outcomes were final-product performance assessed by two blinded raters, and simulator-recorded metrics.

RESULTS: Simulator-integrated tutoring had a large and positive effect on the final-product performance while turned on (mean difference 3.8 points, p<0.0001). However, this did not translate to a better final-product performance in subsequent non-tutored procedures. The tutored cohort had a better metrics-based score, reflecting higher efficiency of drilling (mean difference 3.6 %, p=0.001). For the individual metrics, simulator-integrated tutoring had mixed effects both during procedures and on the tutored cohort in general (learning effect).

CONCLUSIONS: Simulator-integrated tutoring by green-lighting did not induce a better final-product performance but increased efficiency. The mixed effects on learning could be caused by tutoring overreliance, resulting from a lack of cognitive engagement when the tutor-function is on. Further learning strategies such as feedback should be explored to support novice learning and cognitive engagement.