Samy Bouaicha1, Thorsten Jentzsch2, Fabrice Scheurer2, Stefan Rahm2. 1. Orthopaedic Department, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: samy.bouaicha@balgrist.ch. 2. Orthopaedic Department, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the usefulness and conduct validation of a simulated arthroscopy training device to train basic arthroscopy skills. METHODS: Forty-six participants including 12 novices, 12 intermediates, and 22 experts completed a questionnaire regarding demographics, previous arthroscopic experience, training potential, and statements about the device. Furthermore, participants performed a single task on the arthroscopic training device using the 0° camera and a probe. The task consisted of an attempt to carry a rubber ring across a helix inside a box as fast as possible. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing total task time and portal replacements of the camera and probe between all groups (median values [interquartile range]; Kruskal-Wallis test). RESULTS: The median age was 35 (29-44) years. There were 4 female and 42 male participants. A total of 89% of the participants graded the overall training capacity ≥5 (35% graded it as 5, 39% as 6, and 15% as 7), and 83% believed that it is useful to improve any kind of arthroscopy. Ninety-three percent of the participants would recommend the arthroscopic training device to their colleagues. Sixty-one percent of the participants stated that there are certain disadvantages. The median time to complete the task was 108 (58-236) seconds. Novices (259 [123-435] seconds) performed tasks significantly slower than intermediates (169 [67-257] seconds) and experts (75 [49-132] seconds) (P = .005). Furthermore, portal changes were significantly more common in novices and intermediates than experts (P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: High scores in training potential were achieved with this arthroscopy simulator box, and most study participants believed that practice with the arthroscopic training device is useful for any kind of arthroscopy. Construct validity was established since novices, intermediates, and experts in real arthroscopy were discriminated with the arthroscopic training device in terms of time to successful completion of a task. However, 61% of the participants stated that there were certain disadvantages. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In every training tool using simulation, it is crucial to pass the first steps in the validation cascade. This study provides this step for further evaluation of this arthroscopic training device.
PURPOSE: To investigate the usefulness and conduct validation of a simulated arthroscopy training device to train basic arthroscopy skills. METHODS: Forty-six participants including 12 novices, 12 intermediates, and 22 experts completed a questionnaire regarding demographics, previous arthroscopic experience, training potential, and statements about the device. Furthermore, participants performed a single task on the arthroscopic training device using the 0° camera and a probe. The task consisted of an attempt to carry a rubber ring across a helix inside a box as fast as possible. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing total task time and portal replacements of the camera and probe between all groups (median values [interquartile range]; Kruskal-Wallis test). RESULTS: The median age was 35 (29-44) years. There were 4 female and 42 male participants. A total of 89% of the participants graded the overall training capacity ≥5 (35% graded it as 5, 39% as 6, and 15% as 7), and 83% believed that it is useful to improve any kind of arthroscopy. Ninety-three percent of the participants would recommend the arthroscopic training device to their colleagues. Sixty-one percent of the participants stated that there are certain disadvantages. The median time to complete the task was 108 (58-236) seconds. Novices (259 [123-435] seconds) performed tasks significantly slower than intermediates (169 [67-257] seconds) and experts (75 [49-132] seconds) (P = .005). Furthermore, portal changes were significantly more common in novices and intermediates than experts (P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: High scores in training potential were achieved with this arthroscopy simulator box, and most study participants believed that practice with the arthroscopic training device is useful for any kind of arthroscopy. Construct validity was established since novices, intermediates, and experts in real arthroscopy were discriminated with the arthroscopic training device in terms of time to successful completion of a task. However, 61% of the participants stated that there were certain disadvantages. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In every training tool using simulation, it is crucial to pass the first steps in the validation cascade. This study provides this step for further evaluation of this arthroscopic training device.
Authors: Bradley P Richey; Matthew Jordan Deal; Alexandra Baker; Eric M Mason; Ibrahim Mamdouh Zeini; Daryl Christopher Osbahr; Benjamin C Service Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2020-10-23
Authors: Michael L Redondo; David R Christian; Anirudh K Gowd; Brandon C Cabarcas; Gregory Cvetanovich; Bernard R Bach; Anthony A Romeo; Brian J Cole; Nikhil N Verma; Rachel M Frank Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2020-01-19