The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Training in Orthopaedic Surgery
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to determine the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) training in orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review was performed of articles of VR training in orthopaedic surgery published up to November 2014 from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. RESULTS: We included 10 relevant trials of 91 identified articles, which all reported on training in arthroscopic surgery (shoulder, n = 5; knee, n = 4; undefined, n = 1). A total of 303 participants were involved. Assessment after training was made on a simulator in 9 of the 10 studies, and in one study it took place in the operating room (OR) on a real patient. A total of 32 different outcomes were extracted; 29 of them were about skills assessment. None involved a patient-related outcome. One study focused on anatomic learning, and the other evaluated technical task performance before and after training on a VR simulator. Five studies established construct validity. Three studies reported a statistically significant improvement in technical skills after training on a VR simulator. CONCLUSIONS: VR training leads to an improvement of technical skills in orthopaedic surgery. Before its widespread use, additional trials are needed to clarify the transfer of VR training to the OR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of Level I through Level IV studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
LeBlanc, J., Hutchison, C., Hu, Y., & Donnon, T. (2013) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/jbjs.k.01284 · Cited by 66
Cited by
Virtual, augmented, and mixed reality applications in orthopedic surgery
Verhey, J. T., Haglin, J. M., Verhey, E. M., & Hartigan, D. E. (2020) · The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery · doi:10.1002/rcs.2067 · Cited by 264
Virtual Reality in Medical Students’ Education: Scoping Review
Jiang, H., Vimalesvaran, S., Wang, J. K., Lim, K. B., Mogali, S. R., & Car, L. T. (2022) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/34860 · Cited by 259
Effectiveness of virtual reality game in foreign language vocabulary acquisition
Alfadil, M. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103893 · Cited by 257
A review of the evidence for training effectiveness with virtual reality technology
Abich, J., Parker, J., Murphy, J. S., & Eudy, M. (2021) · Virtual Reality · doi:10.1007/s10055-020-00498-8 · Cited by 253
Birjis, Y., Swaminathan, S., Nazemi, H., Raj, G. C. A., Munirathinam, P., Abu-Libdeh, A., & Emadi, A. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22239151 · Cited by 84
Metadata
- Authors
- Aïm, F., Lonjon, G., Hannouche, D., & Nizard, R.
- Venue
- Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 224-232
- ISSN
- 0749-8063 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1811160734
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Training in Orthopaedic Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.arthro.2015.07.023
- The paper
- Aïm, F., Lonjon, G., Hannouche, D., & Nizard, R. (2016). Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Training in Orthopaedic Surgery. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2015.07.023
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
