JMIR Med Educ. 2025 Dec 31. doi: 10.2196/77702. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is very important in medicine and teaching, but there are not many formal training programs. We also don’t know much about what students think. To be good at using ultrasound, you need to learn technical, thinking, and seeing skills. This is especially true in regional anesthesia (RA), where mistakes in reading images can cause problems. Training with simulations is a safe and good way to learn these skills. Some models are helpful for teaching how to do procedures with ultrasound.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, localization time, and success rate of traditional versus a new simulation-based teaching method for regional anaesthesia designed by the investigators in undergraduate medical students.
METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted at the University of Salamanca from April 2022 to January 2023. Thirty-four medical students in their 4th to 6th academic years were randomly allocated to either a simulation-based training group utilizing the Haptic US Probe (HUSP) or a traditional teaching group. The simulation approach employed a realistic probe replica and a software-based ultrasound environment, while the traditional method comprised a theoretical lecture and curated audiovisual materials. Two days post-training, participants underwent a blinded assessment requiring the identification of peripheral nerve plexuses using an ultrasound device. The primary outcome measured was the successful identification of nerves, and the secondary outcome was the time taken to complete each procedure. Data were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach.
RESULTS: A total of 34 medical students (4th to 6th year) were recruited to compare traditional teaching with simulation-based training in ultrasound-guided nerve localization. No statistically significant differences were found in the success rates between the groups. For the interscalene approach, the traditional group achieved a 100% success rate compared to 82.3% in the simulation group (p=0.07). The time to task completion was similar across most procedures. In the sciatic nerve division, the traditional group was significantly faster, with a mean time of 74.67 s (p = 0.02). The regression models showed no significant interaction between the intervention type and academic year. Both teaching methods had positive educational impacts.
CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based learning effectively supports competency acquisition in regional anaesthesia and offers a safe, scalable alternative to traditional methods. Its integration into medical curricula may standardize training, improve skill consistency, and enhance patient safety. Further multicentre studies with larger, diverse cohorts are needed to validate these benefits and guide implementation in medical education.
PMID:41477696 | DOI:10.2196/77702