Lange Marta, Bērziņš Ardis, Whitfill Travis, Kravčuks Jevgēnijs, Skotele Dana, Lice Elina, Stepens Ainars
Medical Education Technology Centre, Riga Stradins University, 26a Anninmuizas Blvd, Riga LV-1067, Latvia.
Department of Clinical Skills and Medical Technology, Riga Stradiņš University, 26a Anninmuizas Blvd, Riga LV-1067, Latvia.
Mil Med. 2025 Apr 23;190(5-6):e1216-e1223. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usae510.
Despite its high potential, the effect of immersive virtual reality simulation (VRS) in trauma resuscitation training has not been studied. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that VRS is non-inferior to mannequin-based simulation (MBS) in trauma resuscitation training.
In a single-center, randomized controlled noninferiority trial, we compared individual training with an immersive virtual reality Trauma Simulator to live MBS training in a facilitated group. The primary outcome was the Trauma Score (ranging from 55 to 177) during the MBS assessment. The secondary outcomes were the Trauma Score VRS assessment, System Usability Scale (SUS) (ranging from 0 to 100), and Simulation Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) (ranging from 0 to 235.62).
A total of 38 participants were enrolled in the study. The mean Trauma Score in MBS assessment was 163.2 (SD 7.9) for the control group and 163.1 (SD 13.8) for the intervention group; the difference of means 0.1 (95% confidence interval: -7.3, 7.5; P = .977). The mean Trauma Score in VRS assessment was 134.2 (SD 24.4) for control group and 158.4 (SD 17.6) for intervention group; the difference of means 24.2 (95% confidence interval: 10.1, 38.3; P = .001). The mean SUS of Trauma Simulator was 74.4 (SD 10.5). The median SSQ Total Severity score was 3.7 (IQR 0-18.7).
This study showed that VRS led to noninferior effects on trauma resuscitation skills to MBS. Trauma Simulator had good usability, was well received by the participants, and had minimal adverse effects.
尽管沉浸式虚拟现实模拟（VRS）在创伤复苏培训方面具有很高的潜力，但尚未对其效果进行研究。本研究的目的是检验在创伤复苏培训中VRS不劣于基于人体模型的模拟（MBS）这一假设。
在一项单中心、随机对照非劣效性试验中，我们将使用沉浸式虚拟现实创伤模拟器的个体培训与在便利小组中进行的现场MBS培训进行了比较。主要结局是MBS评估期间的创伤评分（范围为55至177）。次要结局包括VRS评估的创伤评分、系统可用性量表（SUS）（范围为0至100）和模拟晕动病问卷（SSQ）（范围为0至235.62）。
共有38名参与者纳入本研究。对照组在MBS评估中的平均创伤评分为163.2（标准差7.9），干预组为163.1（标准差13.8）；均值差异为0.1（95%置信区间：-7.3，7.5；P = 0.977）。对照组在VRS评估中的平均创伤评分为134.2（标准差24.4），干预组为158.4（标准差17.6）；均值差异为24.2（95%置信区间：10.1，38.3；P = 0.001）。创伤模拟器的平均SUS为74.4（标准差10.5）。SSQ总严重程度评分的中位数为3.7（四分位间距0 - 18.7）。
本研究表明，VRS在创伤复苏技能方面产生的效果不劣于MBS。创伤模拟器具有良好的可用性，受到参与者的好评，且不良反应最小。
