RESUMEN
Purpose Arthroscopy is one of the most common interventions in orthopedics. Hence it is important to train users early in order to ensure the safest possible identification of access portals (AP). This prospective study aimed to compare a palpatory (PalpMethod) with a sonographic (SonoMethod) method for AP location in the shoulder and knee joints. Materials and Methods The study included trainee doctors (n=68) attending workshops (lasting approx. 90 minutes). In these workshops a teaching video initially demonstrated the PalpMethod and SonoMethod of AP identification. An experienced operator first marked the access portals on the test subject with a UV pen (determined ideal point [DIP]). Adhesive film was then affixed to the puncture regions. Subsequently participants marked on shoulders and knees first the point determined by palpation, then the point determined by sonography. Analysis involved DIP visualization with a UV lamp and employed a coordinate system around the central DIP. In addition, participants completed an evaluation before and after the workshop. Results The analysis included 324 measurements (n=163 shoulders and n= 161 knees). The majority of participants had not previously attended any courses on manual examination (87.9%) or musculoskeletal ultrasound (93.9%). Overall, the markings participants made on the shoulder using the SonoMethod were significantly closer to the DIP than those made by the PalpMethod (Palp 18.8mm ± 14.5mm vs. Sono 11.2mm ± 7.2mm; p<0.001). On the knee, however, the markings made by the PalpMethod were significantly closer to the DIP overall (Palp 8.0mm ± 3.2mm vs. Sono 12.8mm ± 5.2mm; p<0.001). Conclusion The results show that the SonoMethod produces more accurate markings on the shoulder, while the PalpMethod is superior for the knee.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: ultrasound diagnostics have a broad spectrum of applications, including among diseases of the musculoskeletal system. Accordingly, it is important for the users to have a well-founded and up-to-date education in this dynamic examination method. The right balance between online and in-class teaching still needs to be explored in this context. Certifying institutions are currently testing digitally transformed teaching concepts to provide more evidence. METHODS: this study compared two musculoskeletal ultrasound blended learning models. Model A was more traditional, with a focus on in-person teaching, while Model B was more digitally oriented with compulsory webinar. Both used e-learning for preparation. Participants completed evaluations using a seven-point Likert scale, later converted to a 0-1 scale. Digital teaching media (e-learning) were used for preparation in both courses. RESULTS: the analysis included n = 41 evaluations for Model A and n = 30 for Model B. Model B received a better overall assessment (median: 0.73 vs. 0.69, p = 0.05). Model B also excelled in "course preparation" (p = 0.02), "webinar quality" (p = 0.04), and "course concept" (p = 0.04). The "gain of competence" (p = 0.82), "learning materials" (p = 0.30), and "tutor quality" (p = 0.28) showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: participants favorably assessed blended learning in ultrasound teaching. Certifying institutions should consider accrediting models that combine digital methods (e.g., internet lectures/webinars) and materials (e.g., e-learning) with hands-on ultrasound training. Further research is needed to validate these subjective findings for a stronger evidential basis.
