Daniel J Hoppe1, Darren de Sa1, Nicole Simunovic2, Mohit Bhandari3, Marc R Safran4, Christopher M Larson5, Olufemi R Ayeni6. 1. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 3. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Redwood City, California. 5. Minnesota Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Institute at Twin Cities Orthopedics, Edina, Minnesota, U.S.A. 6. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Electronic address: ayenif@mcmaster.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The learning curve for hip arthroscopy is consistently characterized as "steep." The purpose of this systematic review was to (1) identify the various learning curves reported in the literature, (2) examine the evidence supporting these curves, and (3) determine whether this evidence supports an accepted number of cases needed to achieve proficiency. METHODS: The electronic databases Embase and Medline were screened for any clinical studies reporting learning curves in hip arthroscopy. Two reviewers conducted a full-text review of eligible studies and a hand search of conference proceedings and reference sections of the included articles. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, and a quality assessment was completed for each included article. Descriptive statistics were compiled. RESULTS: We identified 6 studies with a total of 1,063 patients. Studies grouped surgical cases into "early" versus "late" in a surgeon's experience, with 30 cases being the most common cutoff used. Most of these studies used descriptive statistics and operative time and complication rates as measures of competence. Five of 6 studies showed improvement in these measures between early and late experience, but only one study proposed a bona fide curve. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that when 30 cases was used as the cutoff point to differentiate between early and late cases in a surgeon's experience, there were significant reductions in operative time and complication rates. However, there was insufficient evidence to quantify the learning curve and validate 30, or any number of cases, as the point at which the learning curve plateaus. As a result, this number should be interpreted with caution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.
PURPOSE: The learning curve for hip arthroscopy is consistently characterized as "steep." The purpose of this systematic review was to (1) identify the various learning curves reported in the literature, (2) examine the evidence supporting these curves, and (3) determine whether this evidence supports an accepted number of cases needed to achieve proficiency. METHODS: The electronic databases Embase and Medline were screened for any clinical studies reporting learning curves in hip arthroscopy. Two reviewers conducted a full-text review of eligible studies and a hand search of conference proceedings and reference sections of the included articles. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, and a quality assessment was completed for each included article. Descriptive statistics were compiled. RESULTS: We identified 6 studies with a total of 1,063 patients. Studies grouped surgical cases into "early" versus "late" in a surgeon's experience, with 30 cases being the most common cutoff used. Most of these studies used descriptive statistics and operative time and complication rates as measures of competence. Five of 6 studies showed improvement in these measures between early and late experience, but only one study proposed a bona fide curve. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that when 30 cases was used as the cutoff point to differentiate between early and late cases in a surgeon's experience, there were significant reductions in operative time and complication rates. However, there was insufficient evidence to quantify the learning curve and validate 30, or any number of cases, as the point at which the learning curve plateaus. As a result, this number should be interpreted with caution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.
Authors: Stephan Reppenhagen; Manuel Weißenberger; Thomas Barthel; Maximilian Rudert; Hermann Anetzberger Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: S Heaven; Darren de Sa; N Simunovic; D S Williams; D Naudie; O R Ayeni Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Darren de Sa; Nolan S Horner; Austin MacDonald; Nicole Simunovic; Gerard Slobogean; Marc J Philippon; Etienne L Belzile; Jon Karlsson; Olufemi R Ayeni Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-08-01 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Hassanin Alkaduhimi; Aimane Saarig; Just A van der Linde; Nienke W Willigenburg; Derek F P van Deurzen; Michel P J van den Bekerom Journal: Shoulder Elbow Date: 2018-01-31
Authors: Edward C Beck; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Laura M Krivicich; Philip Malloy; Sunikom Suppauksorn; Kyleen Jan; Shane J Nho Journal: Sports Health Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 3.843