Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 1, 2025

06:18
Author Spotlight: Segmentation and VR for Advanced Neurovascular Interventions
Published on: April 5, 2024
1.1K
Virtual reality and surgical oncology.
Peng Yun Ng1,2, Eric G Bing3, Anthony Cuevas4
1King's College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK.
Ecancermedicalscience
|April 28, 2023
Summary
Virtual reality (VR) shows promise for surgical training but faces accessibility and standardization issues, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Future research should focus on cost-effective VR with predictive validity for essential cancer surgeries in LMICs.
Area of Science:
- Surgical Oncology
- Medical Education Technology
- Global Health
Background:
- Over 80% of cancer patients need surgery, yet less than 5% in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) access safe, affordable surgical care.
- A significant barrier to surgical care in LMICs is the shortage of trained surgical professionals.
- Virtual reality (VR) is recognized as a potential tool for surgical training, but its specific use in surgical oncology remains unclear.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review the application and validation of VR in surgical oncology globally from 2011 to 2021.
- To identify trends in VR adoption across different surgical specialties and cancer types.
- To assess the current state of VR technology in addressing the global surgical workforce gap.
Main Methods:
- A systematic review of 24 articles published between January 2011 and December 2021.
- Analysis of VR applications in various surgical specialties and cancer treatment pathways.
- Evaluation of the validation methods used for VR surgical training tools.
Main Results:
- VR application in surgical oncology is limited, with a preference for high-income countries and complex procedures.
- Significant gaps exist in VR accessibility and standardization for clinical evaluation and implementation science.
- While VR tools demonstrate face and content validity, construct validity is inconsistent, and predictive validity is largely absent.
Conclusions:
- Current VR technology development is misaligned with global cancer surgery demands, hindering its potential for capacity building.
- There is a critical need for standardized clinical evaluation and implementation strategies for VR in surgical training.
- Future research should prioritize developing cost-effective VR solutions with proven predictive validity for high-demand surgeries in LMICs.

