Objectives: Although virtual reality (VR) simulators play an important role in modern medical training, their efficacy is not often evaluated using learning curves. In this study, the learning curves of novice and intermediate users were elicited during a VR simulation–based curriculum for intravenous (IV) cannulation. Methods: This was a prospective observational study of subjects undergoing training using a VR model of IV cannulation. Participants were divided into two groups: novices (third‐year medical students with no prior practical experience in IV catheterization) and intermediates (recent graduates with limited experience). Performance was measured with two endpoints: time to completion and errors committed. Errors were categorized as critical or noncritical. Learning curves (error score and time completion vs. session number) were analyzed using the Friedman’s test. Performance before and after training was compared using the Kruskal‐Wallis test. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (r_s) was used to determine the correlation between time completion and error score estimates. The number of attempts required to complete the training phase was also measured and compared between the two groups. Results: Thirty subjects were enrolled: 17 in the novice group and 13 in the intermediate group. Learning curve plateaus of intermediates were reached in the sixth case scenario (session), whereas novices reached a plateau in the eighth session. Performance comparison of time to completion and errors showed significant improvement for both groups. Less time and fewer attempts were required by all trainees to complete a scenario while progressing through the curriculum. The overall number of IV cannulation attempts of novices was significantly higher than that of the intermediates throughout the course. Conclusions: Significant learning curves for novice and intermediate students were demonstrated after following the VR simulation–based curriculum. Competencies acquired during this educational course may provide an important advantage for training prior to actual clinical practice. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:1142–1145 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality among both men and women worldwide, underscoring the need for an effective treatment strategy. For early-stage non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], surgical resection is the standard treatment. Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery [RATS] and video-assisted thoracic surgery [VATS] are better than open thoracotomy because they are less invasive. Recent lung cancer screening programs are detecting NSCLC at earlier stages, which is expected to result in an increase in the number of NSCLC surgeries as early-stage cases are diagnosed. A limited number of randomized controlled trials have compared RATS and VATS in operable NSCLC. We conducted a literature review to summarize the available evidence on these two surgical techniques. The purpose of this study is to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of RATS and VATS in early-stage NSCLC patients. RATS shows lower conversion rates to thoracotomy (6.3% vs. 13.1% p < 0.01) and more thorough lymph node dissection than VATS (e.g., 7.5 vs. 5.6 stations, p < 0.001). However, RATS is linked to considerably higher costs (USD 22,582 vs. USD 17,874, p < 0.05) and longer operative times (median 241.7 vs. 214.4 min, p = 0.06). The two techniques exhibited minimal differences in postoperative complications and pain, while RATS patients experienced shortened hospital stays (4–5 vs. 5–6 days, p < 0.006). While the accuracy of staging and treatment planning is improved by the improved lymph node retrieval in RATS, the long-term survival rate is still uncertain.