PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of a low-cost self-made arthroscopic camera (LAC) in basic arthroscopic skills training compared with a commercial arthroscopic camera (CAC). METHODS:One hundred fifty-three orthopaedic residents were recruited and randomly assigned to either the LAC or CAC. They were allocated 2 practice sessions, with 20 minutes each, to practice 4 given arthroscopic tasks: task 1, transferring objects; task 2, stacking objects; task 3, probing numbers; and task 4, stretching rubber bands. The time taken for participants to complete the given tasks was recorded in 3 separate tests; before practice, immediately after practice, and after a period of 3 months. A comparison of the time taken between both groups to complete the given tasks in each test was measured as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Significant improvements in time completion were seen in the post-practice test for both groups in all given arthroscopic tasks, each with P < .001. However, there was no significant difference between the groups for task 1 (P = .743), task 2 (P = .940), task 3 (P = .932), task 4 (P = .929), and total (P = .944). The outcomes of the tests (before practice, after practice, and at 3 months) according to repeated measures analysis of variance did not differ significantly between the groups in task 1 (P = .475), task 2 (P = .558), task 3 (P = .850), task 4 (P = .965), and total (P = .865). CONCLUSIONS: The LAC is equally as effective as the CAC in basic arthroscopic skills training with the advantage of being cost-effective. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In view of the scarcity in commercial arthroscopic devices for trainees, this low-cost device, which trainees can personally own and use, may provide a less expensive and easily available way for trainees to improve their arthroscopic skills. This might also cultivate more interest in arthroscopic surgery among junior surgeons.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of a low-cost self-made arthroscopic camera (LAC) in basic arthroscopic skills training compared with a commercial arthroscopic camera (CAC). METHODS: One hundred fifty-three orthopaedic residents were recruited and randomly assigned to either the LAC or CAC. They were allocated 2 practice sessions, with 20 minutes each, to practice 4 given arthroscopic tasks: task 1, transferring objects; task 2, stacking objects; task 3, probing numbers; and task 4, stretching rubber bands. The time taken for participants to complete the given tasks was recorded in 3 separate tests; before practice, immediately after practice, and after a period of 3 months. A comparison of the time taken between both groups to complete the given tasks in each test was measured as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Significant improvements in time completion were seen in the post-practice test for both groups in all given arthroscopic tasks, each with P < .001. However, there was no significant difference between the groups for task 1 (P = .743), task 2 (P = .940), task 3 (P = .932), task 4 (P = .929), and total (P = .944). The outcomes of the tests (before practice, after practice, and at 3 months) according to repeated measures analysis of variance did not differ significantly between the groups in task 1 (P = .475), task 2 (P = .558), task 3 (P = .850), task 4 (P = .965), and total (P = .865). CONCLUSIONS: The LAC is equally as effective as the CAC in basic arthroscopic skills training with the advantage of being cost-effective. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In view of the scarcity in commercial arthroscopic devices for trainees, this low-cost device, which trainees can personally own and use, may provide a less expensive and easily available way for trainees to improve their arthroscopic skills. This might also cultivate more interest in arthroscopic surgery among junior surgeons.