Comparison of Virtual Reality Platforms for Cervical Brachytherapy Procedure Education

ABSTRACT

Background: Traditionally procedural training requires in-person and hands-on education. However, only about 50% of residents express confidence to develop a brachytherapy practice (Marcrom SR, et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the need to develop distributed educational tools for procedural experiences. Virtual reality (VR) platform has been shown to improves resident confidence and proficiencies (Taunk NK. et al. Brachytherapy 2021). Objective(s) We hypothesize that a low-cost cardboard viewer VR (CVVR) has similar educational effectiveness as commercially available integrated headset VR (IHVR). Method(s) We created a VR video of an intracavitary brachytherapy case. Radiation oncology residents from a single ACGME-accredited training program were recruited and randomized to IHVR or CVVR. Both groups were given unlimited access to their randomized technology. Each resident performed a timed intracavitary procedure on a simulator while 5 implant quality metrics were recorded. A pre- and post-simulation questionnaire assessed self-confidence, procedural knowledge, and perceived usefulness of VR technology. Result(s) There were 13 residents, including four post-graduate year (PGY)-2, three PGY-3, two PGY-4, and four PGY-5, in the study. Both VR technologies improved self-perceived overall confidence. Average time required for implant (mean CVVR-200 seconds vs. IHVR-235 seconds, P=0.38) and median objective proficiencies of implant quality (5/5 in both group, P=0.56) were similar. There was no difference between CVVR and IHVR as useful, enjoyable and engaging educational tool. Both groups would recommend the technology to another trainee. IHVR-based program would cost ~33x more than CVVR-based program based on an assessment of US-based programs. Conclusion(s) CVVR is a cost-effective alternative to a IHVR as a virtual education tool (Figs. 1-3). (Table Presented).