The relevance of low-fidelity virtual reality simulators compared with other learning methods in basic endovascular skills training

Objective: The use of simulators has shown a profound impact on the development of both training and assessment of endovascular skills. Furthermore, there is evidence that simulator training is of great benefit for novice trainees. However, there are only a few simulators available geared specifically toward novice learners. Whereas research suggests that low-fidelity simulators could fill this gap, there are insufficient data available to determine the role of low-fidelity simulators in the training of endovascular skills. Methods: Medical students in their fifth year (N = 50) with no previous endovascular experience were randomized into three groups: conventional learning through a video podcast (group V; n = 12), low-fidelity simulation training with tablet-paired touch-gesture navigation (group A; n = 12), and low-fidelity simulation training with tablet-paired physical endovascular tool navigation (group S; n = 26). Within their respective groups, all students attended a 1-day class on basic endovascular skills. Questionnaire items for self-assessment before and after the class and assessment after the class of the participant's practical skills on a high-fidelity simulator were analyzed across all three groups as well as for each group separately using nonparametric tests. Results: All 50 participants completed the training. Participants in group S showed a significantly increased interest in working in interventional cardiology (P = .02) and vascular surgery (P = .03) after the class. Evaluation of the questionnaire items after the class showed that participants in group S rated their practical skills significantly higher after the class compared with those in group V and group A (P < .001 for pairwise comparison of all three groups, respectively), creating a significant trend across the three groups. However, analysis of the practical skills assessment for all three groups showed a significant difference between the groups only for choosing a guidewire (P = .045) and a significant trend in performance across the groups for choosing a guidewire and for positioning the guidewire in the vessel (P = .02 and P = .05, respectively). All other steps of the skills assessment showed no significant differences or a trend across the groups. Conclusions: Low-fidelity simulation training, particularly with physical endovascular tool navigation, led to increased motivation in novice trainees. Whereas simulator training was associated with increased confidence of trainees in their skills, assessment of their practical skills showed no actual improvement in this study. Overall, low-fidelity simulation has the potential to benefit novice trainees, but possible risks of simulation training should be further evaluated.