Simulation and Virtual Reality as Training Modalities in Interventional Radiology: A Systematic Review

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: To synthesise and appraise the certainty of evidence on simulation- and virtual-reality-based training in interventional radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched to April 2026 following PRISMA 2020, under an a priori protocol registered with PROSPERO (CRD420261358144). Eligible studies evaluated simulation or virtual-reality training with objective outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using design-specific tools (RoB 2, ROBINS-I, the NIH before-after tool) and certainty with GRADE. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis; findings were synthesised narratively (SWiM), without pooling. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (495 learners; seven randomised trials) were included; all reported improvement on at least one metric. Pre-post-reductions ranged from 50 to 72% (fluoroscopy time), 27 to 53% (procedure time), 28 to 76% (contrast volume), and 31 to 71% (radiation dose) (p < 0.001 to 0.05). In controlled trials, simulation improved technique (for example fewer catheters advanced without a guiding wire, 25% versus 82%, p = 0.01) and reduced contrast volume (28.0 versus 40.0 mL, p < 0.01), whereas procedure time was rarely significant. Transfer studies reported real-patient gains, including superior first-attempt cannulation (16 versus 12 of 16, p < 0.05) and a 30% radiation-dose reduction during real CT-guided procedures (p < 0.001). No randomised trial was at low risk of bias; GRADE certainty was low for radiation- and contrast-related outcomes and very low for procedure time and clinical transfer. CONCLUSION: Simulation probably improves interventional-radiology technical performance, most clearly for radiation- and contrast-related outcomes, with low-certainty evidence of clinical transfer. Small samples, heterogeneity and probable publication bias limit the evidence; adequately powered multicentre trials reporting patient-level outcomes are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2a (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine).

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