1191 Building Readiness for Surgical Innovation: Results From the VRiMS (Virtual Reality in Medicine and Surgery) 2026 National Conference

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Aim To evaluate the educational impact of VRiMS’ national surgical conference on participants’ knowledge of emerging surgical technologies and trends, familiarity with the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSEng) Future of Surgery Commission, and confidence in key surgical skills. Delegates ranged from undergraduate medical students to registrars. Method Participants completed pre- and post-conference surveys using a 1-5 Likert scale. Statistical analysis utilised the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test to compare the paired responses. Results 49 participants' total responded to both surveys.Familiarity with the Future of Surgery Commission and its recommendations increased significantly (2.06 ± 1.07 → 3.49 ± 0.84; p<0.01). Significant improvements were observed across all commission-aligned domains:Robotics and automation: 2.14 ± 0.82 → 3.43 ± 0.74 (p<0.01)Artificial intelligence and data science: 2.37 ± 0.86 → 3.69 ± 0.71 (p<0.01)Extended reality and digital simulation: 2.18 ± 0.95 → 3.84 ± 0.77 (p<0.01)Regenerative medicine and bioprinting: 2.14 ± 0.89 → 3.35 ± 0.88 (p<0.01)Global health and remote surgery: 2.47 ± 0.98 → 3.73 ± 0.84 (p<0.01)Sustainable surgery: 2.14 ± 0.91 → 3.41 ± 1.06 (p<0.01)Workforce, leadership, and training reforms: 2.43 ± 0.94 → 3.63 ± 0.93 (p<0.01) Confidence in key future facing technical competencies also improved significantly, including:Laparoscopy: 1.58 ± 0.75 → 3.33 ± 0.86 (p<0.01)Virtual reality simulation: 1.73 ± 0.82 → 3.38 ± 0.90 (p<0.01) Confidence in discussing future of surgery themes also improved: 2.49 ± 1.02 → 3.71 ± 0.76 (p<0.01). Conclusions The conference significantly enhanced participants’ understanding of developments shaping the future of surgery and improved confidence in essential surgical skills, underscoring the value of early engagement with innovation focused surgical education.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.