PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify standard procedures for the validation of arthroscopic simulators and determine whether simulators improve the surgical skills of users. METHODS: Arthroscopic simulator validation studies and randomized trials assessing the effectiveness of arthroscopic simulators in education were identified from online databases, as well as, grey literature and reference lists. Only validation studies and randomized trials were included for review. Study heterogeneity was calculated and where appropriate, study results were combined employing a random effects model. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirteen studies were reviewed. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria assessing the construct validity of simulators. A pooled analysis of internal validation studies determined that simulators could discriminate between novice and experts, but not between novice and intermediate trainees on time of completion of a simulated task. Only one study assessed the utility of a knee simulator in training arthroscopic skills directly and demonstrated that the skill level of simulator-trained residents was greater than non-simulator-trained residents. CONCLUSIONS: Excessive heterogeneity exists in the literature to determine the internal and transfer validity of arthroscopic simulators currently available. Evidence suggests that simulators can discriminate between novice and expert users, but discrimination between novice and intermediate trainees in surgical education should be paramount. International standards for the assessment of arthroscopic simulator validity should be developed to increase the use and effectiveness of simulators in orthopedic surgery.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify standard procedures for the validation of arthroscopic simulators and determine whether simulators improve the surgical skills of users. METHODS: Arthroscopic simulator validation studies and randomized trials assessing the effectiveness of arthroscopic simulators in education were identified from online databases, as well as, grey literature and reference lists. Only validation studies and randomized trials were included for review. Study heterogeneity was calculated and where appropriate, study results were combined employing a random effects model. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirteen studies were reviewed. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria assessing the construct validity of simulators. A pooled analysis of internal validation studies determined that simulators could discriminate between novice and experts, but not between novice and intermediate trainees on time of completion of a simulated task. Only one study assessed the utility of a knee simulator in training arthroscopic skills directly and demonstrated that the skill level of simulator-trained residents was greater than non-simulator-trained residents. CONCLUSIONS: Excessive heterogeneity exists in the literature to determine the internal and transfer validity of arthroscopic simulators currently available. Evidence suggests that simulators can discriminate between novice and expert users, but discrimination between novice and intermediate trainees in surgical education should be paramount. International standards for the assessment of arthroscopic simulator validity should be developed to increase the use and effectiveness of simulators in orthopedic surgery.
Authors: Neal E Seymour; Anthony G Gallagher; Sanziana A Roman; Michael K O'Brien; Vipin K Bansal; Dana K Andersen; Richard M Satava Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: W Dilworth Cannon; Donald G Eckhoff; William E Garrett; Robert E Hunter; Howard J Sweeney Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Gunnar Ahlberg; Lars Enochsson; Anthony G Gallagher; Leif Hedman; Christian Hogman; David A McClusky; Stig Ramel; C Daniel Smith; Dag Arvidsson Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Aaron Insel; Bradley Carofino; Robin Leger; Robert Arciero; Augustus D Mazzocca Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Timothy J Babineau; James Becker; Gary Gibbons; Stephen Sentovich; Donald Hess; Sharon Robertson; Michael Stone Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2004-04
Authors: Stephan Reppenhagen; Manuel Weißenberger; Thomas Barthel; Maximilian Rudert; Hermann Anetzberger Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Sofia Bayona; Kash Akhtar; Chinmay Gupte; Roger J H Emery; Alexander L Dodds; Fernando Bello Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: J J Stunt; G M M J Kerkhoffs; T Horeman; C N van Dijk; G J M Tuijthof Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-08-08 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: R Kyle Martin; Danny Gillis; Jeff Leiter; Jesse Slade Shantz; Peter MacDonald Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 4.176