26vzmnrw002 10.3205/26vzmnrw002 urn:nbn:de:0183-26vzmnrw0020 Meeting Abstract Preibisch Preibisch J. J

Pius Hospital Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland

author Tabriz Tabriz N. N

Pius Hospital Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland

author Kalischke Kalischke M. M

Universität Bremen, Bremen, Deutschland

author Weyhe Weyhe D. D

Pius Hospital Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland

author Uslar Uslar V. V

Pius Hospital Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland

author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 20260618 engl This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). M0644 002 Niederrheinisch-Westfälische Gesellschaft für Chirurgie Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie in Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V. 192. Jahrestagung der Niederrheinisch-Westfälischen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie, 34. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie Viszeralmedizin NRW 2026 Interdisziplinär Dortmund 20260618 20260619 002 TextBackground and objective: Learning and applying anatomy are essential but are studied and done through 2D tools and imaging techniques. This study aims to verify the usefulness of VR in the visualization of anatomical structures and pathological findings as an additional tool in medical diagnostics. The main objective was to determine anatomical understanding in a comparison between sectional image (2D) presentation and additional VR (3D) presentation.Method: The cross-over study assessed 63 participants regarding their knowledge of liver anatomy and pathologies based on an interindividual comparison. Participants answered 25 multiple-choice questions first using sectional imaging (MRI) in a 2D environment (computer screen) and afterward with the respective segmented 3D model visualized in a VR simulation. Main criteria were the number of correctly answered questions and processing time. A customized SUS was used to analyze VR usability.Result: The rate of correct answers improved significantly with the additional use of VR (F1,59=314.376; P<.001). Using MRI, a significant difference was observed between students and residents (P=.04) and between students and specialists (P<.001). In the VR condition, no significant differences between groups were found. In the MRI condition, significant differences in processing time were observed between students and specialists (P=.02) and between residents and specialists (P=.04). No differences existed between students and residents. With VR, processing time decreased significantly in all groups (F1,59=280.700; P<.001). Significant differences between students and specialists (P=.02) and between students and residents (P=.004) remained. No notable differences between residents and specialists (P=.72) were found. The SUS showed a subjectively simplified answerability of the questions with additional use of VR. The usefulness and benefits for an additional use of VR were stated.Summary: The additional use of VR suggests statistically significant improvements across all groups. VR seems to enablestudents and residents to participate in diagnostics and create treatment plans at an early stage. Transferred to clinical practice, thismay lead to improvement in diagnostics and interventions. The lack of randomization and a potential learning effect are the mainlimitations to be addressed in future studies. 0 0 0 0