IntroductionAn immersive virtual reality (VR) simulation clinic with dynamic patient interaction and communication was developed to facilitate the training of medical radiation science students. The software “CETSOL VR Clinic” was integrated into the Medical Imaging programme at Monash University in 2016 in order to benchmark student experiences against existing simulation techniques (Shaderware™).MethodsAn iterative approach to development, based on two cycles of user feedback, was used to develop and refine the simulated clinical environment. This environment uses realistic 3D models, embedded clinical scenarios, dynamic communication, 3D hand gesture interaction, gaze and positional stereoscopic tracking and online user capabilities using the Unity™ game and physics engines. Students’ perceptions of educational enhancement of their positioning skills following the use of the simulation tools were analysed via a 5‐point Likert scale questionnaire.ResultsStudent perception scores indicated a significant difference between simulation modalities in favour of the immersive CETSOL VR Clinic, χ2 (4, N = 92) = 9.5, P‐value <0.001.ConclusionStudent perception scores on improvement of their clinical and technical skills were higher for the hand‐positioning tasks performed with the CETSOL VR Clinic™ than with the comparative benchmark simulation that did not provide dynamic patient interaction and communication.

No abstract

Introduction Immersive virtual reality (VR) simulation environments facilitate novel ways for users to visualize anatomy and quantify performance relative to expert users. The ability of software to provide positional feedback before a practitioner progresses with subsequent stages of examinations has broad implications for primary and allied healthcare professionals, particularly with respect to health and safety (eg, exposing to x-rays). The effect of training student-radiographers (radiology technicians), with a VR simulation environment was quantitatively assessed. Methods Year 1 radiography students (N = 76) were randomly split into 2 cohorts, each of which were trained at performing the same tasks relating to optimal hand positioning for projection x-ray imaging; group 1 was trained using the CETSOL VR Clinic software, whereas group 2 was trained using conventional simulated role-play in a real clinical environment. All participants completed an examination 3 weeks after training. The examination required both posterior-anterior and oblique hand x-ray positioning tasks to be performed on a real patient model. The analysis of images from the examination enabled quantification of the students' performance. The results were contextualized through a comparison with 4 expert radiographers. Results Students in group 1 performed on average 36% (P < 0.001) better in relation to digit separation, 11% (P ≤ 0.001) better in terms of palm flatness and 23% (P < 0.05) better in terms of central ray positioning onto the third metacarpal. Conclusion A significant difference in patient positioning was evident between the groups; the VR clinic cohort demonstrated improved patient positioning outcomes. The observed improvement is attributed to the inherent task deconstruction and variety of visualization mechanisms available in immersive VR environments.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a high precision radiotherapy technique used for the treatment of small to moderate extra-cranial tumours. Early studies utilising SBRT have shown favourable outcomes. However, major disadvantages of static field SBRT include long treatment times and toxicity complications. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may potentially mitigate these disadvantages. This review aims to assess the feasibility of emerging VMAT and IMRT-based SBRT treatment techniques and qualify which offers the best outcome for patients, whilst identifying any emerging and advantageous SBRT planning trends. A review and synthesis of data from current literature up to September 2013 was conducted on EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Science Direct, Proquest central, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews. Only full text papers comparing VMAT and or IMRT and or Static SBRT were included. Ten papers were identified that evaluated the results of VMAT/IMRT SBRT. Five related to medically inoperable stage 1 and 2 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), three to spinal metastasis, one related to abdominal lymph node malignancies, with the final one looking at pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Overall treatment times with VMAT were reduced by 66–70% for lung, 46–58% for spine, 42% and 21% for lymph node and pancreatic metastasis respectively, planning constraints were met with several studies showing improved organs at risk sparing with IMRT/VMAT to static SBRT. Both IMRT and VMAT were able to meet all planning constraints in the studies reviewed, with VMAT offering the greatest treatment efficiency. Early clinical outcomes with VMAT and IMRT SBRT have demonstrated excellent local control and favourable survival outcomes.