Richard L Angelo1, Richard K N Ryu2, Robert A Pedowitz3, Anthony G Gallagher4. 1. ProOrtho Clinic, Kirkland, Washington, U.S.A.. Electronic address: rlamdortho@comcast.net. 2. The Ryu Hurvitz Orthopedic Clinic, Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A. 3. Professor Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. 4. ASSERT, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if previously validated performance metrics for an arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) coupled with a cadaveric shoulder are a valid assessment tool with the ability to discriminate between the performances of experienced and novice surgeons and to establish a proficiency benchmark for an ABR using a cadaveric shoulder. METHODS: Ten master/associate master faculty from an Arthroscopy Association of North America Resident Course (experienced group) were compared with 12 postgraduate year 4 and postgraduate year 5 orthopaedic residents (novice group). Each group was instructed to perform a diagnostic arthroscopy and a 3 suture anchor Bankart repair on a cadaveric shoulder. The procedure was videotaped in its entirety and independently scored in blinded fashion by a pair of trained reviewers. Scoring was based on defined and previously validated metrics for an ABR and included steps, errors, "sentinel" (more serious) errors, and time. RESULTS: The inter-rater reliability was 0.92. Novice surgeons made 50% more errors (5.86 v 2.95, P = .013), showed more performance variability (SD, 1.86 v 0.55), and took longer to perform the procedure (45.5 minutes v 25.9 minutes, P < .001). The greatest difference in errors related to suture delivery and management (exclusive of knot tying) (1.95 v 0.45, P = .024). CONCLUSIONS: The assessment tool composed of validated arthroscopic Bankart metrics coupled with a cadaveric shoulder accurately distinguishes the performance of experienced from novice orthopaedic surgeons. A benchmark based on the mean performance of the experienced group includes completion of a 3-anchor Bankart repair, and enacting no more than 3 total errors and 1 sentinel error. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Validated procedural metrics combined with the use of a cadaveric shoulder can be used to assess the performance of an ABR. The methodology used may serve as a template for outcomes-based procedural skills training in general.
PURPOSE: To determine if previously validated performance metrics for an arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) coupled with a cadaveric shoulder are a valid assessment tool with the ability to discriminate between the performances of experienced and novice surgeons and to establish a proficiency benchmark for an ABR using a cadaveric shoulder. METHODS: Ten master/associate master faculty from an Arthroscopy Association of North America Resident Course (experienced group) were compared with 12 postgraduate year 4 and postgraduate year 5 orthopaedic residents (novice group). Each group was instructed to perform a diagnostic arthroscopy and a 3 suture anchor Bankart repair on a cadaveric shoulder. The procedure was videotaped in its entirety and independently scored in blinded fashion by a pair of trained reviewers. Scoring was based on defined and previously validated metrics for an ABR and included steps, errors, "sentinel" (more serious) errors, and time. RESULTS: The inter-rater reliability was 0.92. Novice surgeons made 50% more errors (5.86 v 2.95, P = .013), showed more performance variability (SD, 1.86 v 0.55), and took longer to perform the procedure (45.5 minutes v 25.9 minutes, P < .001). The greatest difference in errors related to suture delivery and management (exclusive of knot tying) (1.95 v 0.45, P = .024). CONCLUSIONS: The assessment tool composed of validated arthroscopic Bankart metrics coupled with a cadaveric shoulder accurately distinguishes the performance of experienced from novice orthopaedic surgeons. A benchmark based on the mean performance of the experienced group includes completion of a 3-anchor Bankart repair, and enacting no more than 3 total errors and 1 sentinel error. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Validated procedural metrics combined with the use of a cadaveric shoulder can be used to assess the performance of an ABR. The methodology used may serve as a template for outcomes-based procedural skills training in general.
Authors: Courtney D Bell; Joseph G O'Sullivan; Tamara E Ostervoss; William E Cameron; Ryan C Petering; Jacqueline M Brady Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2020-06
Authors: Josephine Hegarty; Victoria Howson; Teresa Wills; Sile A Creedon; Pat Mc Cluskey; Aoife Lane; Aine Connolly; Nuala Walshe; Brendan Noonan; Fiona Guidera; Anthony G Gallagher; Siobhan Murphy Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Marcos Gómez Ruiz; Samson Tou; Anthony G Gallagher; Carmen Cagigas Fernández; Lidia Cristobal Poch; Klaus E Matzel Journal: BJS Open Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Anthony G Gallagher; Martin Hart; David Cleary; Craig Hamilton; Kevin McGlinchey; Patrick Kiely; Brendan P Bunting Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 3.240