You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP41-16 EVALUATION OF MIXED REALITY (MR) TECHNOLOGIES FOR REMOTE GUIDANCE DURING TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND BIOPSY (TRUS-BX) SIMULATION: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED COMPARATIVE TRIAL Rachel Melnyk, John Melnyk, Christopher Wanderling, Scott Quarrier, Hani Rashid, and Ahmed Ghazi Rachel MelnykRachel Melnyk More articles by this author , John MelnykJohn Melnyk More articles by this author , Christopher WanderlingChristopher Wanderling More articles by this author , Scott QuarrierScott Quarrier More articles by this author , Hani RashidHani Rashid More articles by this author , and Ahmed GhaziAhmed Ghazi More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002607.16AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Mixed reality (MR) allows the fusion of two video streams allowing real time overlay of a remote instructors hands onto the trainee’s view. We aim to evaluate remote MR training compared to in person (IP) training using a validated TRUS-Bx hydrogel simulation model. METHODS: 14 participants with <5 case experience were randomized into MR and in person arms. All 14 reviewed educational videos of relevant anatomy and TRUS-BX steps followed by a pre-test, 3 training sessions, and post-test. During pre- and post-test participants independently measured the prostate, administered anesthetic and completed 14 biopsies on a validated hydrogel model with each biopsy area colored separately (Figure 1A). Accuracy was defined as percentage of each core with the correct color corresponding to the biopsy area. During training sessions faculty guided trainees through procedural steps on a non-colored model either remotely using a MR platform or in person. MR set up included transmitting ultrasound view and audio via Zoom and displaying the merged surgical field with proctor hands on a tablet (Figure 1B). The remote faculty annotated the ultrasound view and guided trainees with their hands using the merged surgical view (Figure 1C). Post-training surveys evaluated trainee perceptions and proctor evaluations. RESULTS: On completion groups reported equal mean confidence in knowledge (MR: 80.6/100 vs IP: 87.8/100, p=0.49), ability to perform simulated TRUS (89.8 vs 90, p=0.97) and live TRUS (66.8 vs 71, p=0.73). Pre-test core percentage was similar among groups (MR: 17.9% vs IP: 26.4%, p=0.44). Both groups experienced significant increases in post-test scores (75.9% for MR and 62.3% for IP groups). MR groups increase was x1.5 times greater (MR: +58.0% vs IP: +35.9%, p <0.01) despite trainee perceptions that remote training may hinder their ability to learn. Faculty rated the trainee skills from 1 (below expectations) to 3 (exceeds expectations) for TRUS manipulation, gland measurement, anesthetic, and biopsy. The MR group averaged 0.5, 0.1, 0.8 and 0.5 higher respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Remote training using MR technology provided equivalent learning to in-person simulation training. This technology has the potential for cross-institutional training. Source of Funding: SAU grant © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e726 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Rachel Melnyk More articles by this author John Melnyk More articles by this author Christopher Wanderling More articles by this author Scott Quarrier More articles by this author Hani Rashid More articles by this author Ahmed Ghazi More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...