No evidence currently supports transfer of simulator-based VRS training to the operating room¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · reviewr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The review concludes that no evidence supports that simulator-based training of novices in VRS transfers to the operating room. → Rasmussen Rasmus Christian 2019
q2 i? The one skill-transfer study found no statistically significant difference between simulator-trained and untrained groups on vitrectomies in enucleated pig eyes. → Rasmussen Rasmus Christian 2019 (2)
Evidence¶
Rasmussen Rasmus Christian 2019¶
Rasmussen Rasmus Christian, Grauslund Jakob, Vergmann Anna Stage. (2019). Simulation training in vitreoretinal surgery: a systematic review. BMC Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-019-1098-x
q2 · i? · review · r3
The review's conclusion based on only seven included studies, of which one attempted transfer to cadavers. This is a statement of absent evidence, not evidence of absence of transfer.
"Currently, no evidence supports that simulator-based training of novices in VRS is capable of transferring to the operating room."
Rasmussen Rasmus Christian 2019 (2)¶
Rasmussen Rasmus Christian, Grauslund Jakob, Vergmann Anna Stage. (2019). Simulation training in vitreoretinal surgery: a systematic review. BMC Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-019-1098-x
q2 · i? · review · r3
Randomized trial (n = 14) by Jonas et al. as described in the review: simulator practice versus no training before vitrectomy on enucleated pig eyes; all three comparisons non-significant. Equivalence was not tested.
"Results from the three vitrectomies were 45.7% vs. 42.9% (p = 0.71), 62.9% vs. 51.4% (p = 0.26), and 64.3% vs. 57.1% (p = 0.54), simulator-trained group vs. untrained group respectively. Thus, no results showed a statistically significant difference."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Three of four studies demonstrated transfer of surgical skills from robotic VR simulators to the operating room measured by time and technical surgical performance — reports the opposite
- No longitudinal studies or RCTs demonstrate that AI-acquired skills transfer to the operating room — related
- Evidence for transfer of simulation training to operating-room outcomes was sparse in neuro-oncological simulation research — related
- XR technologies improve surgical skills and procedural accuracy while reducing risks and operating room time (performance expectancy) — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.