Literature DB >> 28676200

Cigar Box Arthroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial Validates Nonanatomic Simulation Training of Novice Arthroscopy Skills.

Rory P Sandberg1, Nathan C Sherman2, L Daniel Latt1, Jolene C Hardy1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to validate the cigar box arthroscopy trainer (CBAT) as a training tool and then compare its effectiveness to didactic training and to another previously validated low-fidelity but anatomic model, the anatomic knee arthroscopy trainer (AKAT).
METHODS: A nonanatomic knee arthroscopy training module was developed at our institution. Twenty-four medical students with no prior arthroscopic or laparoscopic experience were enrolled as subjects. Eight subjects served as controls. The remaining 16 subjects were randomized to participate in 4 hours of either the CBAT or a previously validated AKAT. Subjects' skills were assessed by 1 of 2 faculty members through repeated attempts at performing a diagnostic knee arthroscopy on a cadaveric specimen. Objective scores were given using a minimally adapted version of the Basic Arthroscopic Knee Skill Scoring System. Total cost differences were calculated.
RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of subjects in the CBAT and AKAT groups succeeded in reaching minimum proficiency in the allotted time compared with 25% in the control group (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the number of attempts to reach proficiency between the CBAT and AKAT groups. The cost to build the CBAT was $44.12, whereas the cost was $324.33 for the AKAT.
CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests the CBAT is an effective knee arthroscopy trainer that may decrease the learning curve of residents without significant cost to a residency program. This study demonstrates the need for an agreed-upon objective scoring system to properly evaluate residents and compare the effectiveness of different training tools.
Copyright © 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28676200     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.04.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  7 in total

1.  Can an Augmented Reality Headset Improve Accuracy of Acetabular Cup Orientation in Simulated THA? A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Kartik Logishetty; Luke Western; Ruairidh Morgan; Farhad Iranpour; Justin P Cobb; Edouard Auvinet
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Using video calling to simulate arthroscopic surgery in a resource-poor setting.

Authors:  Michael Thomas Stoddart; Lucy Mary Frances Rolt
Journal:  BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn       Date:  2020-05-15

3.  A novel arthroscopy training program based on a 3D printed simulator.

Authors:  J Ferràs-Tarragó; N Jover-Jorge; I Miranda-Gómez
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-05-07

4.  The frequency of assessment tools in arthroscopic training: a systematic review.

Authors:  Haixia Zhou; Chengyao Xian; Kai-Jun Zhang; Zhouwen Yang; Wei Li; Jing Tian
Journal:  Ann Med       Date:  2022-12       Impact factor: 5.348

5.  Reliability testing of a modified MISTELS score using a low-cost trainer box.

Authors:  Anis Hasnaoui; Haithem Zaafouri; Dhafer Haddad; Ahmed Bouhafa; Anis Ben Maamer
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 2.463

6.  Predictors of Performance on the Arthrobox Arthroscopy Simulator for Medical Students.

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

7.  Complications After Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: A Review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database.

Authors:  Jason J Shin; Adam J Popchak; Volker Musahl; Jay J Irrgang; Albert Lin
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2018-12-04
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.