Virtual Reality SimulationNCT07515092
Virtual Reality-Based Simulation Training for Retrograde Anterior Column Acetabular Screw Placement in Orthopedic Residents
A study testing Virtual reality based simulation training and Standard Training in people with Virtual Reality Simulation, run by Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Medical College and Vajira Hospital at 1 site in Thailand.
Trial summary
The goal of this study is to find out if virtual reality (VR) training helps orthopedic residents improve their skills in placing screws in the pelvic bone. The study will also compare VR training with standard training to see which method is more effective and easier to use. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Virtual Reality Simulation
- What is being tested?
- Virtual reality based simulation training and Standard Training
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteThailand
- Study dates
- 1 Jan 2026to 1 Dec 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Orthopedic residents (PGY 1-4)
- Currently enrolled in the orthopedic training program at Vajira Hospital
Who cannot join
- Prior VR training in pelvic fixation procedures
- Experience performing antegrade anterior column screw placement more than 5 times
- Inability to complete all study procedures
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
About this study
Official title: Virtual Reality-Based Simulation Training for Retrograde Anterior Column Acetabular Screw Placement in Orthopedic Residents: A Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial
The goal of this study is to find out if virtual reality (VR) training helps orthopedic residents improve their skills in placing screws in the pelvic bone. The study will also compare VR training with standard training to see which method is more effective and easier to use.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
Read more
Does VR training improve performance compared to standard training? Does VR training help reduce procedure time and X-ray use? Do participants prefer VR training? Researchers will compare VR training with standard training using a crossover design, where all participants receive both types of training.
Participants will:
Take part in both VR and standard training sessions Practice the procedure on a bone model Be evaluated by experts on their performance Complete a satisfaction questionnaire
- Conditions
- Virtual Reality Simulation
- Being tested
- Virtual reality based simulation training, Standard Training
- Keywords
- Virtual reality, anterior column screw, anterior column screw of acetabulum, virtual reality based simulation training, retrograde anterior column screw
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Virtual reality based simulation trainingDevice
Participants train using a VR platform simulating retrograde anterior column screw placement. Three-dimensional pelvic models reconstructed from CT data are integrated into a virtual operating environment. Participants interact using a VR headset with simulated instruments and fluoroscopic imaging, allowing repeated practice with real-time feedback. Duration: up to 30 minutes.
Standard TrainingOther
Participants perform screw placement on a pelvic sawbone model under fluoroscopic guidance using standard instruments, including a 2.0 mm K-wire. The setup simulates real operative conditions. Duration: up to 30 minutes.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| VR Simulation Training → Standard Training (Sequence AB) | Experimental | Participants first undergo VR simulation training, followed by standard training after a washout period Receives: Device: Virtual reality based simulation training; Other: Standard Training |
| Standard Training → VR Simulation Training (Sequence BA) | Active comparator | Participants first undergo standard training, followed by VR simulation training after a washout period. Receives: Device: Virtual reality based simulation training; Other: Standard Training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Global Rating Scale (GRS) Score for Technical Performance
Overall technical performance score (range 6-30) assessed by two independent blinded orthopedic trauma experts using a validated Global Rating Scale. A higher score means better outcomes.
Measured: Immediately after each training session
Secondary outcomes (4)
Procedure Time
Total time required to complete the screw placement procedure (minutes).
Measured: Immediately after each training session
Fluoroscopy Time
Total duration of fluoroscopic use during the procedure (seconds).
Measured: Immediately after each training session
Guidewire Reposition Attempts
Number of times the guidewire trajectory is adjusted during the procedure.
Measured: Immediately after each training session
User Satisfaction (QUIS Score)
Participant satisfaction assessed using the Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction (Likert scale). This score contains of 9-point bipolar Likert scale, the analysis focuses on Central Tendency (Mean) and Variability (Standard Deviation). A Higher mean of the score indicates better outcome. Minimum score =1, Maximum score = 9.
Measured: Immediately after each training session
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Apr 2026
- Study start1 Jan 2026
- Primary completion1 Sep 2026
- Study completion1 Dec 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (17)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Virtual Reality SimulationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Medical College and Vajira Hospital
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Samrit Tanya, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Medical College and Vajira Hospital
- Investigators
- Pornsak Nirunsuk, Study chair, Faculty of medicine Vajira Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07515092
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- COA 248/2568
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 25 Mar 2026
- Last updated
- 23 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Individual participant data (IPD) will not be shared. The dataset contains sensitive information collected from a limited number of participants within a single institution, and there is a potential risk of participant re-identification despite de-identification procedures. Therefore, data sharing is restricted to protect participant confidentiality in accordance with institutional review board (IRB) requirements.
Publications
Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(3):163-70. doi: 10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163.
PubMed 20046623Kuhn AW, Yu JK, Gerull KM, Silverman RM, Aleem AW. Virtual Reality and Surgical Simulation Training for Orthopaedic Surgery Residents: A Qualitative Assessment of Trainee Perspectives. JB JS Open Access. 2024 Mar 20;9(1):e23.00142. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00142. eCollection 2024 Jan-Mar.
PubMed 38511201McCloy R, Stone R. Science, medicine, and the future. Virtual reality in surgery. BMJ. 2001 Oct 20;323(7318):912-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7318.912. No abstract available.
PubMed 11668138Gansslen A, Lindahl J, Lindtner RA, Krappinger D, Staresinic M. Special screw corridors and imaging in pelvic ring trauma. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2025 Jan 4;145(1):110. doi: 10.1007/s00402-024-05610-0.
PubMed 39755924Berk T, Zderic I, Schwarzenberg P, Pastor T, Drenchev L, Skulev HK, Richards G, Hierholzer C, Halvachizadeh S, Pape HC, Gueorguiev B. Antegrade anterior column acetabulum fracture fixation with cannulated compression headless screws-A biomechanical study on standardized osteoporotic artificial bone. PLoS One. 2024 Jun 3;19(6):e0300256. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300256. eCollection 2024.
PubMed 38829845Osterhoff G, Wulsten D, Babu S, Heyland M, Pari C. Antegrade versus retrograde screw fixation of anterior column acetabular fractures: a biomechanical in vitro study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2021 Oct;47(5):1307-1312. doi: 10.1007/s00068-019-01255-6. Epub 2019 Oct 29.
PubMed 31664465Unal YC, Adanas C, Kaya S, Ozkan S, Ismailov U. Virtual reality headset versus traditional training in orthopedic surgery: A comparative study on real surgical performance in total knee arthroplasty. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Nov 22;103(47):e40615. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000040615.
PubMed 39809210Martin KD, Akoh CC, Amendola A, Phisitkul P. Comparison of Three Virtual Reality Arthroscopic Simulators as Part of an Orthopedic Residency Educational Curriculum. Iowa Orthop J. 2016;36:20-5.
PubMed 27528830Kayaalp ME, Konstantinou E, Karaismailoglu B, Lucidi GA, Kaymakoglu M, Vieider R, Giusto JD, Inoue J, Hirschmann MT. The metaverse in orthopaedics: Virtual, augmented and mixed reality for advancing surgical training, arthroscopy, arthroplasty and rehabilitation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2025 Aug;33(8):3039-3050. doi: 10.1002/ksa.12723. Epub 2025 Jul 7.
PubMed 40622017Hooper J, Tsiridis E, Feng JE, Schwarzkopf R, Waren D, Long WJ, Poultsides L, Macaulay W; NYU Virtual Reality Consortium. Virtual Reality Simulation Facilitates Resident Training in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Arthroplasty. 2019 Oct;34(10):2278-2283. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.002. Epub 2019 Apr 8.
PubMed 31056442de Andrade ALL, Yuamoto FY, Malcher CMSR, Appenzeller S, Garcia TA, Belangero WD. ARTHROSCOPY LEARNING IN VIRTUAL REALITY: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND METANALYSIS. Acta Ortop Bras. 2025 Aug 18;33(3):e287823. doi: 10.1590/1413-785220253303e287823. eCollection 2025.
PubMed 40837459Cannon WD, Garrett WE Jr, Hunter RE, Sweeney HJ, Eckhoff DG, Nicandri GT, Hutchinson MR, Johnson DD, Bisson LJ, Bedi A, Hill JA, Koh JL, Reinig KD. Improving residency training in arthroscopic knee surgery with use of a virtual-reality simulator. A randomized blinded study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Nov 5;96(21):1798-806. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00058.
PubMed 25378507Blumstein G, Zukotynski B, Cevallos N, Ishmael C, Zoller S, Burke Z, Clarkson S, Park H, Bernthal N, SooHoo NF. Randomized Trial of a Virtual Reality Tool to Teach Surgical Technique for Tibial Shaft Fracture Intramedullary Nailing. J Surg Educ. 2020 Jul-Aug;77(4):969-977. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.01.002. Epub 2020 Feb 5.
PubMed 32035854Vaughan N, Dubey VN, Wainwright TW, Middleton RG. A review of virtual reality based training simulators for orthopaedic surgery. Med Eng Phys. 2016 Feb;38(2):59-71. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.11.021. Epub 2015 Dec 29.
PubMed 26751581Hasan LK, Haratian A, Kim M, Bolia IK, Weber AE, Petrigliano FA. Virtual Reality in Orthopedic Surgery Training. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2021 Nov 10;12:1295-1301. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S321885. eCollection 2021.
PubMed 34785971