Quentin Baumann1, Alexandre Hardy2, Olivier Courage3, Pierre Lacombes4, Franck Accadbled5. 1. Service orthopédie, CHU d'Amiens-Sud, CHU d'Amiens, 1, rue du Pr Christian Cabrol, 80000 Amiens, France; Klinikum Rechts der Isaar, Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Sportorthopädie, 22, Ismaninger Str, 81675 München, Germany. Electronic address: quentin.baumann@yahoo.fr. 2. Chirurgie orthopédique et sportive, hôpital Cochin, AP-HP, 27, rue du Faubourg Saint Jacques, 75014 Paris, France. 3. Hôpital Privé de l'Estuaire, 505, rue Irène Joliot Curie, 76600 Le Havre, France. 4. Hôpital d'Enfants, HUG de Genève, rue Willy, Donzé 6, CH-1211 Genève 14, Switzerland. 5. Orthopédie traumatologie, hôpital des enfants, 330, avenue de Grande Bretagne, TSA 70034 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arthroscopy simulators offer safe and reproducible training to orthopaedic residents, thereby obviating the need for cadaver specimens. In addition, they collect data that can serve to investigate learning curves and evaluate training programmes with the goal of improving the quality of arthroscopy teaching. In this study, a cohort of surgeons was evaluated before and after a European theoretical and practical training programme that used a knee arthroscopy simulator. The primary objective was to assess whether the overall performance score was improved by the training programme. The secondary objectives were to determine which tasks and skills were improved by the programme, to compare a novice group to an experienced group, and to identify targets for improvement. HYPOTHESIS: A theoretical and practical training course improves the scores achieved on an arthroscopy simulator task. METHODS: A prospective comparative study was performed in 34 surgeons during the advanced arthroscopy training course organised by the European Paediatric Orthopaedic Society (EPOS) in January 2018. All participants performed a diagnostic task on the VirtaMed ArthroS™ simulator before and after the programme. The participants were divided into two groups based on number of knee arthroscopies performed each year, i.e.,>20 (experienced group) vs.≤20 (inexperienced group). The following parameters were compared between the two groups: overall score, operative time, percentage of iatrogenic injuries, camera and hook path lengths, and success in identifying anatomical structures. RESULTS: The overall score on the diagnostic task was 199 before and 203 after the training programme (p=0.02). The operative time decreased significantly, from 185 to 115.9seconds (p<0.01). Camera path length decreased from 85.2 to 49.2cm and hook path length from 65.5 to 15.0cm (p<0.05). The mean proportion of arthroscopies with iatrogenic tibial cartilage injuries diminished from 2.7%±1.7% (range, 0-6.7) to 1.8%±1.8% (range, 0-7) (p=0.03); no change occurred in femoral injuries. When each group was assessed separately, the only significant change found in the experienced group was a decrease in operative time, whereas in the inexperienced group all parameters improved significantly. However, visualisation of anatomical structures was unchanged. CONCLUSION: Participation in the training programme improved overall performance, and the gains were greatest in the inexperienced group. During the post-training evaluation, some of the major anatomical structures were classified by the simulator as incompletely visualised, raising concern about a risk of underdiagnosis during arthroscopic explorations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, prospective comparative study.
BACKGROUND: Arthroscopy simulators offer safe and reproducible training to orthopaedic residents, thereby obviating the need for cadaver specimens. In addition, they collect data that can serve to investigate learning curves and evaluate training programmes with the goal of improving the quality of arthroscopy teaching. In this study, a cohort of surgeons was evaluated before and after a European theoretical and practical training programme that used a knee arthroscopy simulator. The primary objective was to assess whether the overall performance score was improved by the training programme. The secondary objectives were to determine which tasks and skills were improved by the programme, to compare a novice group to an experienced group, and to identify targets for improvement. HYPOTHESIS: A theoretical and practical training course improves the scores achieved on an arthroscopy simulator task. METHODS: A prospective comparative study was performed in 34 surgeons during the advanced arthroscopy training course organised by the European Paediatric Orthopaedic Society (EPOS) in January 2018. All participants performed a diagnostic task on the VirtaMed ArthroS™ simulator before and after the programme. The participants were divided into two groups based on number of knee arthroscopies performed each year, i.e.,>20 (experienced group) vs.≤20 (inexperienced group). The following parameters were compared between the two groups: overall score, operative time, percentage of iatrogenic injuries, camera and hook path lengths, and success in identifying anatomical structures. RESULTS: The overall score on the diagnostic task was 199 before and 203 after the training programme (p=0.02). The operative time decreased significantly, from 185 to 115.9seconds (p<0.01). Camera path length decreased from 85.2 to 49.2cm and hook path length from 65.5 to 15.0cm (p<0.05). The mean proportion of arthroscopies with iatrogenic tibial cartilage injuries diminished from 2.7%±1.7% (range, 0-6.7) to 1.8%±1.8% (range, 0-7) (p=0.03); no change occurred in femoral injuries. When each group was assessed separately, the only significant change found in the experienced group was a decrease in operative time, whereas in the inexperienced group all parameters improved significantly. However, visualisation of anatomical structures was unchanged. CONCLUSION: Participation in the training programme improved overall performance, and the gains were greatest in the inexperienced group. During the post-training evaluation, some of the major anatomical structures were classified by the simulator as incompletely visualised, raising concern about a risk of underdiagnosis during arthroscopic explorations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, prospective comparative study.