Clinical Study
Feasibility of the Epiduroscopy Simulator as a Training Tool: A Pilot Study
Table 1
Survey responses on the features and usefulness of the simulator.
| ā | Beginner group | Expert group | Total |
| The 3D virtual environment is similar to the real epidural anatomy | Strongly disagree | 1 (14.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (5.0%) | Disagree | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 2 (10.0%) | Neutral | 3 (42.9%) | 6 (46.2%) | 9 (45.0%) | Agree | 2 (28.6%) | 4 (30.8%) | 6 (30.0%) | Strongly agree | 1 (14.3%) | 1 (7.7%) | 2 (10.0%) | The simulator is similar to the real epiduroscopy | Strongly disagree | 2 (28.6%) | 2 (15.4%) | 4 (20.0%) | Disagree | 2 (28.6%) | 1 (7.7%) | 3 (15.0%) | Neutral | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 5 (25.0%) | Agree | 2 (28.6%) | 4 (30.8%) | 6 (30.0%) | Strongly agree | 1 (14.3%) | 1 (7.7%) | 2 (10.0%) | The training is helpful in anatomical understanding of the catheter insertion pathway (spatial awareness) | Strongly disagree | 1 (14.29%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5.0%) | Disagree | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) | 1 (5.0%) | Neutral | 1 (14.3%) | 2 (15.4%) | 3 (15.0%) | Agree | 2 (28.6%) | 8 (61.5%) | 10 (50.0%) | Strongly agree | 3 (42.9%) | 2 (15.4%) | 5 (25.0%) | The simulator training will be helpful in the training or education of real epiduroscopy | Strongly disagree | 1 (14.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (5.0%) | Disagree | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | Neutral | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 2 (10.0%) | Agree | 2 (28.6%) | 6 (46.2%) | 8 (40.0%) | Strongly agree | 4 (57.1%) | 5 (38.5%) | 9 (45.0%) |
|
|
Both groups responded favorably to the functionality of the simulator system.
|