ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2025
Validity of a virtual reality-based straight coloanal anastomosis simulator.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCurrent training methods for surgical trainees are inadequate because they are costly, low-fidelity, or have a low skill ceiling. This work aims to expand available virtual reality training options by developing a VR trainer for straight coloanal anastomosis (SCA), one of the Colorectal Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (COSATS) tasks.
methodsWe developed a VR-based SCA simulator to evaluate trainees based on their performance. To increase the immersiveness, alongside the VR headset, we used haptics as the primary method of interaction with the simulation. We also implemented objective performance metrics to evaluate trainee performance throughout the simulation.
resultsWe presented our performance metrics to 27 participants for an Expert Consensus Survey (5-point Likert scale) and created weights for our metrics. The weighted average scores for the 24 task-specific metrics ranged from 3.5 to 5. Additionally, for the general metrics, the scores spanned from 3.3 to 4.6. In the second phase of our study, we conducted a study with 16 participants (novice n = 9, expert n = 7). Based on the performance, experts outperformed novices by 8.56% when referring to the total score (p = 0.0041). Three of the measurable metrics, purse suture (p = 0.0797), retracting the anvil (p = 0.0738), and inserting the colonoscope (p = 0.0738) showed a significant difference between experts and novices. Experts were smoother with their hand motions by 3.67% per second and took 70.77% longer paths to complete the same tasks.
conclusionWe created a high-fidelity coloanal anastomosis VR simulator. The simulator runs in real-time while allowing high immersion with a VR headset, deformable bodies, and a haptic device while providing objective feedback through performance metrics. Experts obtained higher scores throughout the simulation, including the quiz to demonstrate procedural knowledge, the metrics to demonstrate experience in steps/procedure, and control of their basic surgical skills and hand movements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.