Table 3.
Post-simulation participant feedback. Data was gathered through a self-reported questionnaire where participants were asked to rate a series of statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
| Haptic | Non-haptic | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enjoyed using simulator | 5 (5) | 5 (4, 5) | 0.11 |
| Found valuable | 5 (4,5) | 4.5 (4, 5) | 0.53 |
| Instrument looked realistic | 5 (4, 5) | 4 (3.75, 5) | 0.27 |
| Instrument felt realistic | 4 (4, 5) | 3 (2, 4) | 0.006* |
| Instrument sounded realistic | 5 (4, 5) | 4 (3, 5) | 0.03* |
| Bone model appeared realistic | 4 (4, 5) | 4 (3.75, 5) | 0.24 |
| Simulated realistic clinical scenario | 4 (4, 5) | 4 (3, 5) | 0.2 |
| Haptic feedback crucial for task | 5 (5) | 5 (4.75, 5) | 0.68 |
| Would use simulator again if available | 5 (5) | 5 (4, 5) | 0.12 |
| Simulation should be part of surgical training | 5 (5) | 5 (4, 5) | 0.48 |
| Simulation improved theoretical knowledge | 4 (3,4.5) | 4 (3, 5) | 0.85 |
| Simulation trained how to use instrument | 4 (4) | 4 (3.75, 5) | 0.71 |
| Simulation trained how to avoid over-drilling | 4 (4) | 3 (3, 5) | 0.58 |
| Simulation trained how to recognise when to stop drilling | 4 (4, 5) | 3 (3, 4) | 0.039* |
| Simulation would help improve clinical outcome when operating | 4 (4, 5) | 4 (3, 4.25) | 0.093 |
| Simulation increased confidence in surgical tools | 4 (4) | 4 (3, 4.25) | 0.7 |
| Simulation increased competence in safe use of surgical tools | 4 (3.5, 4.5) | 3.5 (3, 4.25) | 0.32 |
| Regular use of surgical skills training simulation would be valuable | 5 (4, 5) | 4 (4, 5) | 0.53 |
Data presented as median (IQR), *<0.05, Mann–Whitney U test.