Arthroscopic Shoulder Simulation Studies Reveal Improvements in Performance Metrics Without Proven Transferability to the Operating Room: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of shoulder arthroscopic simulation in orthopaedic surgery trainees. METHODS: A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, using PubMed, Medline (Ovid), and EMBASE library databases. Inclusion criteria were experimental studies reporting pre- and post-test results of shoulder arthroscopic simulation in orthopaedic trainees (studies reporting results of comparison between groups not within the groups were excluded). Participant demographics, type of simulator training, simulator tasks assessed, and performance outcome measures were systematically reviewed. Each performance outcome measure was graphically represented in a Forest plot with point estimates of the incidence of performance outcomes with corresponding 95% confidence intervals and I2. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria with a total of 353 participants. The most common procedures simulated were diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy (n = 9 [60%]), arthroscopic Bankart repairs (n = 3 [20%]), and rotator cuff repairs (n = 2 [13%]). Simulations primarily used virtual reality (60%) and benchtop models (40%). The primary outcomes measured were time to task completion and Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool scores. Time to task completion improved significantly with training (range 13-439 seconds pretest to 8-253.29 seconds post-test), with substantial heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 87%). ASSET scores improved in 60% of the studies (ranging from 14-20.9 pretest to 17.9-28.5 post-test), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 20%). In addition, both camera and probe distances decreased after simulation use, whereas the 14-point anatomic checklist showed no pre- to post-test differences. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic simulation training benefits technical skills in shoulder arthroscopy, but the quality, assessment, and validity of these protocols vary. The translation of simulation training into the operating room has yet to be conclusively demonstrated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.

Identifying barriers to resident robotic console time in a general surgery residency through a targeted needs assessment.

Robotic-assisted general surgery is experiencing exponential growth. Despite our institution's high volume, residents often graduate with inadequate console experience. Our aim was to identify the educational needs of residents and perceived barriers to residents' console time from both attendings and residents. Separate surveys were created and distributed to robotic surgery faculty and general surgery residents at our institution. Questions were a variety of modalities and focused on the robotic surgery experience at our institution, including barriers to resident console time from both attending surgeon and resident perspectives. Although residents' interest in robotic surgery exceeded that of open and laparoscopic surgery, confidence in their robotic skills was low compared to the other modalities. The top barriers to participating in robotic cases according to residents included minimal or no previous console time with the attending, lack of simulator time, and being required to perform bedside assistant duties. Faculty reported resident preparedness, prior robotic skill demonstration, simulator time, case complexity, and their own confidence as significant factors influencing resident console time. Using these results, we concluded that the design and implementation of a formal robotic surgery curriculum should incorporate simulation-based opportunities for residents to practice their skills, improve confidence, and increase console experience. In addition, simulation opportunities for faculty should also be considered to allow for improvement and maintenance of robotic surgical skills.

Association between COVID-19 related elective surgery cancellations and pediatric inguinal hernia complications: A nationwide multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Optimal inguinal hernia repair timing remains controversial. It remains unclear how COVID-19 related elective surgery cancellations impacted timing of inguinal hernia repair and whether any delays led to complications. This study aims to determine whether elective surgery cancellations are safe in pediatric inguinal hernia. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study at 14 children's hospitals included patients ≤18 years who underwent inguinal hernia repair between September 13, 2019, through September 13, 2020. Patients were categorized by whether their inguinal hernia repair occurred before or after their hospital's COVID-19 elective surgery cancellation date. Incarceration and emergency department encounters were compared between pre and postcancellation. RESULTS: Of 1,404 patients, 604 (43.0%) underwent inguinal hernia repair during the postcancellation period, 92 (6.6%) experienced incarceration, and 213 (15.2%) had an emergency department encounter. The postcancellation period was not associated with incarceration (odds ratio 1.54; 95% confidence interval 0.88-2.71; P = .13) or emergency department encounters (odds ratio 1.53; 95% confidence interval 0.94-2.48; P = .09) despite longer median times to inguinal hernia repair (precancellation 29 days [interquartile range 13-55 days] versus postcancellation 31 days [interquartile range 14-73 days], P = .01). Infants were more likely to have the emergency department be their index presentation in the postcancellation period (odds ratio 1.69; 95% confidence interval 1.24-2.31; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Overall, COVID-19 elective surgery cancellations do not appear to increase the likelihood of incarceration or emergency department encounters despite delays in inguinal hernia repair, suggesting that cancellations are safe in children with inguinal hernia. Assessment of elective surgery cancellation safety has important implications for health policy.