Bringing Radiology Education to a New Reality: A Pilot Study of Using Virtual Reality as a Remote Educational Tool

Abstract

Purpose: We investigated virtual reality (VR) during a 2-week, undergraduate, radiology elective to determine if it improved learning outcomes and user satisfaction. Methods: Eighteen students enrolled between August 2021 and February 2022. Each student had a collaborative Zoom teaching session with a preceptor using a Picture Archive and Communications System (PACS)-like viewing system Online DICOM Image Navigator (ODIN), followed by a teaching session using a VR, Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) viewer (SieVRt). After each teaching session, the students independently reviewed 8 imaging cases and completed case related questions. The students completed a survey, rating their subjective experiences using ODIN and SieVRt. Results: There was no difference in total test scores between the two learning strategies. However, students did perform statistically better on two of five questions designed to test the detection/measurement capabilities of SieVRt vs ODIN. Students stated that they preferred using SieVRt over ODIN and agreed that they were able to view subtle imaging findings and abnormalities better using SieVRt. However, students found that some of the functions of SieVRt (measuring angles/lengths, and multitasking) were difficult. There were technical challenges with VR and minor undesirable physical effects (dizziness, nausea, etc.). Conclusions: Virtual reality has the potential to enhance radiology education by providing an immersive and engaging experience. Objectively, students were able to perform two tasks better with SieVRt. Subjectively, the VR platform received favourable reviews from students for a variety of features. There were reported technical and physical challenges related to using VR. Future developments in VR systems should focus on improving the user experience.

The Scope of Virtual Reality Simulators in Radiology Education: Systematic Literature Review

“…Similarly, 58% of the respondents in the study conducted by O’Connor et al [ 15 ] reported enjoying learning using VR simulation. In the study by Wu et al [ 37 ], 83.3% of students agreed or strongly agreed that they enjoyed using VR for learning. Similarly, the studies by Rainford et al [ 31 ] and O’Connor et al [ 15 ] reported student recommendation of 87% and 94%, respectively, for VR as a learning tool.…”

“…The studies used a wide range of VR software and hardware. Some of the studies used 3D simulation software packages displayed on 2D desktop computers [ 22 24 25 36 ], whereas others used headsets for an immersive VR environment [ 15 23 26 35 37 ]. The most used VR teaching software were the CETSOL VR Clinic software [ 33 35 ], Virtual Medical Coaching VR software [ 15 30 32 ], Projection VR (Shaderware) software [ 36 ], SieVRt VR system (Luxsonic Technologies) [ 37 ], medical imaging training immersive environment software [ 23 ], VR CT Sim software [ 25 ], VitaSim ApS software [ 26 ], VR X-Ray (Skilitics and Virtual Medical Coaching) software [ 27 ], and radiation dosimetry VR software (Virtual Medical Coaching Ltd) [ 31 ].…”

“…In another study by Jensen et al [ 26 ], 90% of the students strongly agreed that VR simulators could contribute to learning radiography, with 90% reporting that the x-ray equipment in the VR simulation was realistic. In the study by Wu et al [ 37 ], most of the students (55.6%) agreed or somewhat agreed that VR use was useful in radiology education. Similarly, 83% of the students in Shanahan’s [ 36 ] study regarded VR learning with an ease of use.…”

Advancing IR in Underserved Regions: Interventional Radiology Simulation Near and Far

“…8 In a radiology elective for undergraduate students, Wu et al cited the cost of a high-fidelity VR workstation as $3,200 CAD and the software license as $600 CAD. 36 Another study found the cost per trainee to practice microsurgical techniques on a high fidelity, live rat vas deferens model was $55 CAD, while it was only $1.50 CAD for the low-fidelity, silicone tubing model. 27 Despite this cost difference, long-term patency rates were the same across both groups.…”

“…35 VR use during a 2-week undergraduate diagnostic radiology elective found mixed results, with students performing better at limited tasks in part due to underlying technical challenges. 36 A separate group developed a VR training system using an endovascular robotic system; this may one day represent how IR is practiced, but it is limited to particular academic centers and is still very much a nascent technology. 37 Hayden et al described “telesimulation,” in which the instructor observes via webcam and remotely controls a mannequin being used to simulate a variety of cases.…”