IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dbk/medicw/v2y2023ip106id106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis of Virtual Reality Simulation and Conventional Training in Temporal Bone Dissection

Author

Listed:
  • Dipak Sethi
  • Aniruddh Dash

Abstract

A novel method for teaching a variety of medical operations is virtual reality (VR) simulation, which can potentially improve learning without the hazards of conventional hands-on training. A crucial ability in otolaryngology that calls for accuracy and skill is the dissection of cadaveric temporal bones. A total of 155 individuals with little to no prior knowledge of temporal bone dissection were randomized to either the VR group (85 participants), which trained under supervision using a VR simulator, or the traditional group (70 participants), which used models, videos, and small group instructions. Participants dissected a cadaveric temporal bone after training, and blinded assessors evaluated the results using six criteria: anatomical accuracy, technique, efficiency, overall performance, injury size, and end product. The results revealed that the VR group outperformed the traditional group, achieving significantly higher scores in the end product, causing fewer injuries to anatomical structures, and demonstrating better overall performance, with all differences being statistically significant. The research employed IBM SPSS statistics (version 26) for statistical analysis, and an independent t-test was used to compare the groups' mean scores. The results indicated fair to moderate reliability when inter-rater reliability was evaluated using the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and the kappa statistic. These findings suggest that VR simulation is a more effective means of honing cadaveric temporal bone dissection abilities than traditional training techniques.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:dbk:medicw:v:2:y:2023:i::p:106:id:106
DOI: 10.56294/mw2023106
as

Download full text from publisher

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
for a similarly titled item that would be available.

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dbk:medicw:v:2:y:2023:i::p:106:id:106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Javier Gonzalez-Argote (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://mw.ageditor.ar/ .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.