Effectiveness of virtual reality in training operating room nurses for robotic arm surgery

Background: Operating room nurses for robotic arm surgery require comprehensive training to ensure their proficiency in operating high-tech equipment, ensuring patient safety, and effectively managing surgical processes.Virtual reality (VR) has proven benefits in nurse education in enhancing knowledge and complementing other simulation strategies, resulting in better quality and safety of clinical practice.However, despite the rapid advancement in VR-assisted teaching, little research has yet been focused on their application for nurse-training for robotic arm surgery.Purposes: This study aimed to develop an experiential learning VR (EL-VR) training program as a supportive teaching and training tool based on VR technology for operating room nurses, focusing on Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS), and to evaluate its effectiveness by comparing it with traditional practical training methods.Methods: An experimental research design was used with a convenience sample of operating room nurses with less than two years of work experience at a medical center in central Taiwan.Nurses were randomly assigned to either the experimental or the control group.The experimental group took an hour long 'robotic surgery virtual reality' teaching course, followed by traditional practical training in the operating room.The control group received the traditional practical training in the operating room.After completing the training, both groups were evaluated in terms of teaching effectiveness based on measures including learning motivation, sense of presence, cognitive load, technology acceptance, and satisfaction with the learning approach.Results: We studied a total of 82 nurse participants, with 41 in the VR group and 41 in the control group.We found significantly higher scores in the VR group compared with the control group in several areas, including learning motivation (4.94 0.25 vs. 3.23 0.94, p < .001),sense of presence (4.37 0.90 vs. 3.13 0.70, p < .001),perceived usefulness of the technology (4.66 0.63 vs. 3.41 0.95, p < .001),perceived ease of use of the technology (4.72 0.50 vs. 3.16 0.83, p < .001),and satisfaction with the learning approach (4.76 0.55 vs. 3.26 0.87, p < .001).Conversely, the