Global Rating Scales for the Assessment of Arthroscopic Surgical Skills: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether sufficient validity and reliability evidence exists to support the use of global rating scales (GRS) as evaluation tools in both formative assessment and competency assessment of arthroscopic procedures. METHODS: A search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted for articles published between 1990 and 2018. Studies reporting measures of validity and reliability of GRS relating to arthroscopic skills were included. Procedural checklists and other assessment tools were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 39 articles met the inclusion criteria. In total, 7 de novo GRS specific for arthroscopic education and 3 pre-existing GRS repurposed 4 times for arthroscopic education were identified in the literature. The 11 GRS were used to assess 1175 surgeons 3890 times. Three GRS tools explicitly defined an arbitrary minimum competency threshold, 6 of 11 tools demonstrated construct validity-the ability to significantly discriminate between groups of differing experience-and 5 of 11 tools assessed inter-rater reliability, but only the Arthroscopic Surgical Skills Evaluation Tool demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability. The Arthroscopic Surgical Skills Evaluation Tool was validated by 16 articles for a total of 537 surgeons for hip, knee, shoulder, and ankle arthroscopy in both simulated and clinical environments but was found to be invalid in wrist arthroscopy. The Basic Arthroscopic Knee Skill Scoring System was validated by 15 articles for a total of 497 surgeons for knee, hip, and shoulder in both clinical and simulated environments. The remaining 9 GRS were validated by 2 or fewer studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, GRS have contributed to training, feedback, and formative assessment practices. The GRS reviewed demonstrate both construct and concurrent validity as well as reliability in multiple arthroscopic procedures in multiple joints. Currently, there is sufficient evidence to use GRS as a feedback tool. However, there is insufficient evidence for its use in high-stakes examinations or as a minimum competency assessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of level I to III studies.

Distal radius fractures: an evidence-based approach to assessment and management.

Distal radius fractures account for one in five bony injuries in both primary and secondary care. These are commonly the result of a fall on outstretched hands or high-energy trauma. On assessment, clinicians should determine the mechanism of injury, associated bony or soft tissue injuries, and neurovascular symptoms. Investigations should always include radiographs to evaluate for intra-articular involvement and fracture displacement. Owing to the heterogeneous injury patterns and patient profiles, the preferred management should consider the severity of the fracture, desired functional outcome and patient comorbidities. Non-operative management in select patients can give good results, especially in older adults. Immobilisation with or without reduction forms the mainstay of non-operative treatment. Surgical management options include closed reduction and application of a cast, percutaneous K-wires, open reduction and internal fixation with plates, or external fixation. Patients should be encouraged to mobilise as soon as it is safe to do so, to prevent stiffness. Median nerve compression is the most common complication followed by tendon rupture, arthrosis and malunion. This article outlines the British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics for the management of distal radius fractures.