Arthroscopic Simulation Training Research Articles

Hand Dominance Is Not of Significance in Performing Fundamental Arthroscopic Skills Simulation Training Tasks

To compare the performance of the dominant and nondominant hand during fundamental arthroscopic simulator training. Surgical trainees who participated in a 2-day simulator training course between 2021 and 2023 were classified, according to their arthroscopic experience in beginners and competents. Only right-handed individuals with complete data sets were included in the study. Ambidexterity was trained using a box trainer (Fundamentals of Arthroscopic Surgery Training, Virtamed AG, Schlieren, Switzerland).Two tasks, periscoping for learning camera guidance and triangulation for additional instrument handling, were performed 4 times with the camera in the dominant hand and then in the nondominant hand. For each task, exercise time, camera path length, and instrument path length were recorded and analyzed. Out of 94 participants 74 right-handed individuals (22 females, 52 males) were classified to novices (n= 43, less than 10 independently performed arthroscopies) and competents (n= 31, more than 10 independently performed arthroscopies). Competents performed significantly better than novices. No significant difference was found after changing the guiding hand for the camera from the dominant to the nondominant hand regarding the camera path length and the instrument path length. Notably, tasks were performed even faster when using the camera in the nondominant hand. Our data demonstrate that the learned manual skills during basic arthroscopic training are quickly transferred to the contralateral side. In consequence, additional fundamental skills training for camera guidance and instrument handling of the nondominant hand are not necessary. For skillful arthroscopy, camera guidance and instrument handing must be equally mastered with both hands. It is important to understand how hand dominance may affect learning during arthroscopic simulator training.

The number of arthroscopies performed by trainees does not deduce the level of their arthroscopic proficiency.

It is reasonable to question whether the case volume is a suitable proxy for the manual competence of an arthroscopic surgeon. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the number of arthroscopies previously performed and the arthroscopic skills acquired using a standardized simulator test. A total of 97 resident and early orthopaedic surgeons who participated in arthroscopic simulator training courses were divided into five groups based on their self-reported number of arthroscopic surgeries: (1) none, (2) < 10, (3) 10 to 19, (4) 20 to 39 and (5) 40 to 100. Arthroscopic manual skills were evaluated with a simulator by means of the diagnostic arthroscopy skill score (DASS) before and after training. Seventy-five points out of 100 must be achieved to pass the test. In the pretest, only three trainees in group 5 passed the arthroscopic skill test, and all other participants failed. Group 5 (57 ± 17 points; n = 17) scored significantly higher than the other groups (group 1: 30 ± 14, n = 20; group 2: 35 ± 14, n = 24; group 3: 35 ± 18, n = 23; and group 4: 33 ± 17, n = 13). After a two-day simulator training, trainees showed a significant increase in performance. In group 5, participants scored 81 ± 17 points, which was significantly higher than the other groups (group 1: 75 ± 16; group 2: 75 ± 14; group 3: 69 ± 15; and group 4: 73 ± 13). While self-reported arthroscopic procedures were n.s. associated with higher log odds of passing the test (p = 0.423), the points scored in the pretest were found to be a good predictor of whether a trainee would pass the test (p < 0.05). A positive correlation was observed between the points scored in the pretest and the posttest (p < 0.05, r = 0.59, r2 = 0.34). The number of previously performed arthroscopies is not a reliable indicator of the skills level of orthopaedic residents. A reasonable alternative in the future would be to verify arthroscopic proficiency on the simulator by means of a score as a pass-fail examination. III.

Cost Analysis of an In-House Arthroscopic Skills Simulator

Objectives: To compare objective costs between an in-house developed arthroscopy simulator and commercially available options. Design: Cost analysis. Setting: Orthopaedic graduate medical education. Patients/Participants: Eight board-certified orthopaedic surgeons and nineteen novice learners. Intervention: Simulation Training. Main outcome measurement: Cost difference between an in-house developed simulator and a commercially available simulator. Results and conclusions: Significant price differences exist between in-house simulator production cost and commercially available simulators. Low-cost, in-house simulators improve access to arthroscopic simulation training for novice learners by reducing up front cost by 29% and reducing recurring costs by over 90% when compared to a similar commercially available option. Level of Evidence: IV; Cost Analysis Keywords: Education; Simulation; Orthopaedics; Arthroscopy; Simulation Based Learning Theory (J Ortho Business Jan 2022;2(1):7-9)

119 The Potential of Low-fidelity Arthroscopic Simulation Training in Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Experimental Studies

AimIn an era of budget tightening and work-hour guideline reductions that have significantly reduced surgical exposure, low-fidelity arthroscopic simulators have an essential role to play in surgical training. The COVID-19 pandemic has only further amplified the need for alternative training models, as 91% of orthopaedic trainees have had elective procedures cancelled. The purpose of this systematic review is to synopsise the limited literature regarding the effectiveness of low-fidelity training models in the instruction of novices, and to formulate recommendations for future studies.MethodThe Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were electronically searched. Studies from any year that described the use of orthopaedic, low-fidelity arthroscopic training models in novice populations were included. Questionnaires, case studies and review studies were excluded. Risk of bias assessments were also conducted for all studies.Results16 studies were identified. Using the PRISMA algorithm, 6 studies were deemed relevant. A cross-study comparison revealed low-fidelity arthroscopic simulators reduced time to completion outcomes (P < 0.05), increased ASSET scores (P < 0.01) and confirmed face validity and transfer of skills (cadaver, live patients).ConclusionsLow-fidelity simulator training significantly improves the arthroscopic performance of novices, without the high setup costs and practical constraints of high-fidelity equivalents. Low-fidelity arthroscopic simulators remain a promising training apparatus in an era of reduced surgical exposure (COVID-19). We have identified the need for consistent outcome measures with greater sample sizes across future studies. We recommend the use of standardised pre-intervention teaching (e.g., ABOS curriculum) and further transference, construct, and face validity evaluations to support future result interpretations.

Virtual arthroscopy : Gaming or training concept of the future

Arthroscopy is atechnically challenging surgical procedure with arelatively shallow learning curve compared to open procedures. To become an expert special cognitive and manual abilities have to be acquired and trained. The current situation in further medical education combined with the increasing economic pressure in the medical field does not leave enough room for atime-consuming training in arthroscopic techniques. A structured simulation training could be an alternative solution to this problem. The benefits of arthroscopic simulation training are meanwhile well documented. The complex tasks that an expert carries out during arthroscopy can be fragmented into more simple and elementary exercises and can be trained in astress-free environment outside the operation room. An essential advantage of simulation training is the assessment of objective measurement parameters during the individual exercises. These parameters can be used to evaluate the learning process and performance of arthroscopic tasks. The aim of this review is to reflect the current state of simulation technology in arthroscopy and to show how simulator training can be meaningfully and effectively integrated into arthroscopic further training, exemplified by a modern medical further education concept.

Does Arthroscopic Simulation Training Improve Triangulation and Probing Skills? A Randomized Controlled Trial✰

To determine the effectiveness of simulator training on basic arthroscopic skills utilizing a novel, low-cost arthroscopic triangulation training system. A randomized controlled trial of subjects without prior arthroscopy training was conducted, with participants randomized to receive either a fixed protocol of simulation training on a triangulation simulation model (30 minutes of training for 4 consecutive days), or no training. On Days 1 and 5, all participants were evaluated on 3 simulated arthroscopic tasks by an independent observer. Variables analyzed included how many times portals were changed, the time it took to complete the tasks, and the task completion rate. Arthrex Inc., Naples, FL. Thirty-six participants (92% male, average 28 ± 5 years) with no prior arthroscopy training were randomized into 2 groups, with 17 in the training group (T) and 19 in the no-training group (NT). On Day 1, there was no difference in rate of task completion between the T group and NT groups (41% versus 53%, p = 0.52). On Day 5, significantly more participants in the T group completed all tasks compared to the NT group (100% versus 63%, p = 0.008). Participants in the T group had significantly improved task completion times on Day 5 versus Day 1 (p < 0.05). Participants in the NT group had a significantly improved task completion time for Task 1 on Day 5 versus Day 1 (p = 0.037); no differences were found for Tasks 2 or 3. On Day 5, participants in the T group required significantly fewer portal changes compared to the NT group (2.35 ± 2.29 versus 6.95 ± 8.55, p = 0.039). Simulation training on a simple, low-cost arthroscopic triangulation training system resulted in an overall improvement in arthroscopic probing and triangulation skills within 1 week of training, with significantly decreased task completion times and increased efficiency of movement.

Utility of Modern Arthroscopic Simulator Training Models: A Meta-analysis and Updated Systematic Review

To determine the utility of modern arthroscopic simulators in transferring skills learned on the model to the operating room. A meta-analysis and systematic review of all English-language studies relevant to validated arthroscopic simulation models using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines from 1999 to 2016 was performed. Data collected included the specific simulator model, the joint used, participant demographic characteristics, participant level of training, training session information, type and number of tasks, pre- and post-training assessments, and overall outcomes of simulator performance. Three independent reviewers analyzed all studies. Fifty-seven studies with 1,698 participants met the study criteria and were included. Of the studies, 25 (44%) incorporated an arthroscopic training program into the study methods whereas 32 (56%) did not. In 46 studies (81%), the studies' respective simulator models were used to assess arthroscopic performance, whereas 9 studies (16%) used Sawbones models, 8 (14%) used cadaveric models, and 4 (7%) evaluated subject performance on a live patient in the operating room. In 21 studies (37%), simulator performance was compared with experience level, with 20 of these (95%) showing that clinical experience correlated with simulator performance. In 25 studies (44%), task performance was evaluated before and after simulator training, with 24 of these (96%) showing improvement after training. All 4 studies that included live-patient arthroscopy reported improved operating room performance after simulator training compared with the performance of subjects not participating in a training program. This review suggests that (1) training on arthroscopic simulators improves performance on arthroscopic simulators and (2) performance on simulators for basic diagnostic arthroscopy correlates with experience level. Limited data suggest that simulator training can improve basic diagnostic arthroscopy skills invivo. Level IV, systematic review of Level I through IV studies.

Transfer of arthroscopic skills from computer simulation training to the operating theatre: a review of evidence from two randomised controlled studies

Introduction: There is paucity in the research on transfer validity of arthroscopic simulator training. The aim of this article is to determine whether skills derived from arthroscopic simulation are transferrable to the operating theatre and retained over time. Methods: A systematic review with rigorous criteria to identify the highest level of evidence available was carried out. The studies were critically appraised with narrative data synthesis. Results: Twenty-one studies on arthroscopic simulation were identified. Only two studies were randomised controlled trials. The first article demonstrated improved performance of basic knee arthroscopic tasks following a fixed period of training. The second article showed improved performance of arthroscopic tasks and no deterioration in the levels of skills following a period of six months. In addition, the two studies succeeded in demonstrating the importance of 3D motion analysis using computer simulators in the assessment of technical skills. Components of evaluation such as time to task completion, distance travelled by instruments and incidence of instruments collisions were associated with the highest validity and reliability of assessment. This systematic review highlighted the limitations of these two randomised studies. Discussion: Evidence from the two trials suggests that knee arthroscopy simulator training can result in improved performance. This review helped highlight the contribution of the two studies in terms of internal validity and consistency of using arthroscopic skills training. Further level I studies are however required to demonstrate the evidence for transfer and predictive validity of computer simulation as a training instrument.

Ankle Arthroscopy Simulation Improves Basic Skills, Anatomic Recognition and Proficiency during Diagnostic examination of Residents in Training

Background:The purpose of this study was to determine whether low-fidelity arthroscopic simulation training improves basic ankle arthroscopy performance and efficiency among orthopedic trainees.Met...

Utility of Modern Arthroscopic Simulator Training Models: A Systematic Review

Utility of Modern Arthroscopic Simulator Training Models: A Systematic Review

Transferring simulated arthroscopic skills to the operating theatre

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of laboratory-based simulator training on the ability of surgical trainees to perform diagnostic arthroscopy of the knee. A total of 20 junior orthopaedic trainees were randomised to receive either a fixed protocol of arthroscopic simulator training on a bench-top knee simulator or no additional training. Motion analysis was used to assess performance objectively. Each trainee then received traditional instruction and demonstrations of diagnostic arthroscopy of the knee in theatre before performing the procedure under the supervision of a blinded consultant trainer. Their performance was assessed using a procedure-based assessment from the Orthopaedic Competence Assessment Project and a five-point global rating assessment scale. In theatre the simulator-trained group performed significantly better than the untrained group using the Orthopaedic Competence Assessment Project score (p = 0.0007) and assessment by the global rating scale (p = 0.0011), demonstrating the transfer of psychomotor skills from simulator training to arthroscopy in the operating theatre. This has implications for the planning of future training curricula.