Evaluating the effectiveness of a low fidelity, easily available simulator to teach basic arthroscopy skills to novice learners: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopy proficiency is key to being a competent orthopaedic surgeon and acquiring arthroscopic skills takes years of exposure and diligent practice. However, today's graduating consultants have had considerably less time in operating theatre than their senior colleagues at the same point of their careers. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether: (1) Students could improve their arthroscopic technique using a low fidelity arthroscopic training tool (2) students enjoyed the use of the simulator (3) If certain demographics correlate to performance on the simulator. METHODS: Medical students who have no previous training in arthroscopy were included. A combined left- and right-handed timed run with a low-fidelity arthroscopic triangulation simulator was recorded before and after 40-minutes of practice. RESULTS: 84 participants took part with an average improvement of was 66.8%. Students felt that their arthroscopic skills increased on average by 36.4%. 73 of the 84 participants gave the maximum score of 5 when asked if they enjoyed the session and 74 participants gave the maximum score of 5 as to whether they would be interested in participating in further sessions. Factors such as biological sex, video game play and sports were found to be statistically significant to performance. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a statistically significant improvement in students' arthroscopic performance with a low-fidelity arthroscopic simulator. Students found the experience useful with the vast majority indicating interest in completing further training sessions to help improve practical surgical skills. Video gamers, sports players and males were found to have a correlation with performance on the simulator.

Variation in Reported Learning Outcomes and Measurement Instruments in Hip Arthroscopy Simulation Training: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the current literature on the effectiveness of hip arthroscopy simulation training and to determine the consistency of reporting and validation of simulation used in hip arthroscopy. METHODS: Three databases (PubMed, EMBase, and CINAHL) were screened using PRISMA guidelines in January 2022 for published literature on virtual simulation in hip arthroscopy. Studies reporting on the use of hip arthroscopy simulation training in orthopedic surgical trainees were included and assessed for quality and risk of bias using MINORS criteria. The number of participants, participant education level, experience, simulator type, validation type, method of assessment, and simulation outcomes were extracted from included studies. RESULTS: Of the 286 articles screened, 11 met inclusion criteria for review evaluating 323 orthopedic trainees with a mean of 29.36 participants per study published between 2012 and 2021, most commonly in the United Kingdom (55%). The four most reported surgical skills evaluated were visualization and probing tasks (82%), mean time to perform the task (73%), number of cartilage and soft tissue collisions (73%), and number of hand movements (73%). The most described measurement instruments included a simulation built-in scoring system (55%), Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET) Global Rating Scale (GRS) (27%), and motion analysis system (18%). Construct validity was the most reported overall type of validity (82%), followed by face validity (36%), transfer validity (18%) and content validity (18%). Construct validity was also the most reported validity for the simulator and measurement instrument (55% and 89%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in reported learning outcomes and measurement instruments for evaluating the effectiveness of hip arthroscopic-based education. This study highlights that simulation training may be an effective tool for evaluation of hip arthroscopy skills. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of level I to III studies.

Arthroscopic Simulation-Based Training of Orthopaedic Surgery Residents: Past, Present, and Future.

Simulation-based training is required by many medical specialties. Barriers, however, have prevented widespread implementation of simulators for arthroscopic training. The advantages of arthroscopic simulator-based training of residents include decreased errors, decreased cost of training, and improved patient care. Before an educational program can focus on the type of simulator, it is essential to have a validated curriculum and framework for how to use those simulators. One of the most validated systems is called proficiency-based progression training. Proficiency-based progression is essentially a paradigm in which basic skills must be mastered and demonstrated via objective evaluation, before moving on to more advanced skills. There are a variety of different validation methods and tools that have been described, with the Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool being the most widely used tool. It is essential that any simulator has evidence and validation that it will ultimately improve surgical skills in the operating room. In the future, emerging technologies such as virtual reality, augmented reality, and three-dimensional printing will likely play a major role in the creation of newer simulators and may improve access to residents throughout the world.

A spaced retraining schedule with 2-day interval improves the acquisition and retention of simulation-based basic arthroscopic skills.

PURPOSE: To compare the effect of three differently spaced retraining schedules (1-day, 2-day, and 1-week intervals) on the acquisition of basic arthroscopic skills and skill retention after 3 months. METHODS: Thirty orthopaedic residents without arthroscopic experience were enrolled in a double-blind, randomised, parallel-controlled trial. Spaced retaining schedules were divided into massed training and retraining phases. Participants were required to obtain perfect scores in all tasks on the simulator in the massed training phase, followed by a pretest to evaluate the training effect. During the retraining phase, participants were randomly assigned to Groups A (1-day interval), B (2-day interval) or C (1-week interval). A posttest was used to evaluate the effect of different retraining patterns. Follow-up evaluations were conducted at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after the completion of spaced retraining schedules to measure skill retention. One-way ANOVA and paired-sample t tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Significant between-group differences in diagnostic arthroscopy (137.0 ± 24.8 vs. 140.1 ± 21.3 vs. 175.3 ± 27.4 s, P(A-C) = 0.005, P(B-C) = 0.010) and loose body removal (193.1 ± 33.9 vs. 182.0 ± 32.1 vs. 228.7 ± 42.9 s, P(B-C) = 0.025) completion times were observed. No significant differences were found in other posttest metrics. An assessment of skill retention after the 3-month follow-up (Evaluation 3) showed significant differences in diagnostic arthroscopy completion time (202.5 ± 53.3 vs. 172.0 ± 27.2 vs. 225.5 ± 42.1 s, P(B-C) = 0.026). No significant differences were found in other Evaluation 3 metrics. CONCLUSION: The 2-day retraining schedule was the most effective for the acquisition and retention of basic arthroscopic skills and could be integrated into arthroscopic skills curricula. After a 3-month follow-up, residents who followed this schedule showed better skill retention than those who followed the 1-week interval schedule. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

Assessment of learning in simulator-based arthroscopy training with the diagnostic arthroscopy skill score (DASS) and neurophysiological measures.

PURPOSE: Virtual arthroscopic training has become increasingly popular. However, there is a lack of efficiency-based tracking of the trainee, which may be critical for determining the specifics of training programs and adapting them for the needs of each trainee. This study aims to evaluate and compare the measures obtained with a non-invasive neurophysiological method with The Diagnostic Arthroscopy Skill Score (DASS), a commonly used assessment tool for evaluating arthroscopic skills. METHODS: The study collected simulator performance scores, consisting of "Triangulation Right Hand", "Triangulation Left Hand", "Catch the Stars" and "Three Rings" and DASS scores from 22 participants (11 novices, 11 experts). These scores were obtained while participants underwent a structured program of exercises for the fundamentals of arthroscopic surgery training (FAST) and knee module using a simulator-based arthroscopy device. During the evaluation, data on oxy-hemoglobin and deoxy-hemoglobin levels in the prefrontal cortex were collected using the Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) imaging system. Performance scores, DASS scores, and fNIRS data were subsequently analyzed to determine any correlation between performance and cortex activity. RESULTS: The simulator performance scores and the DASSPart2 scores were significantly higher in the expert group compared to the novice group (200.1 ± 28.5 vs 172.5 ± 48.9, p = 0.04 and 9.4 ± 5.6 vs. 5.4 ± 5.6 p = 0.02). In the expert group, fNIRS data showed a significantly lower prefrontal cortex activation during fundamental tasks in the FAST module, indicating significantly more efficient mental resource use. CONCLUSION: The analysis of cognitive workload changes during simulation-based arthroscopy training revealed a significant correlation between the trainees' DASS scores and fNIRS data. This correlation suggests the potential use of fNIRS data and DASS scores as additional metrics to create adaptive training protocols for each participant. By incorporating these metrics, the training process can be optimized, leading to more efficient arthroscopic training and better preparedness for clinical operations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The number of arthroscopies performed by trainees does not deduce the level of their arthroscopic proficiency.

PURPOSE: It is reasonable to question whether the case volume is a suitable proxy for the manual competence of an arthroscopic surgeon. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the number of arthroscopies previously performed and the arthroscopic skills acquired using a standardized simulator test. METHODS: A total of 97 resident and early orthopaedic surgeons who participated in arthroscopic simulator training courses were divided into five groups based on their self-reported number of arthroscopic surgeries: (1) none, (2) < 10, (3) 10 to 19, (4) 20 to 39 and (5) 40 to 100. Arthroscopic manual skills were evaluated with a simulator by means of the diagnostic arthroscopy skill score (DASS) before and after training. Seventy-five points out of 100 must be achieved to pass the test. RESULTS: In the pretest, only three trainees in group 5 passed the arthroscopic skill test, and all other participants failed. Group 5 (57 ± 17 points; n = 17) scored significantly higher than the other groups (group 1: 30 ± 14, n = 20; group 2: 35 ± 14, n = 24; group 3: 35 ± 18, n = 23; and group 4: 33 ± 17, n = 13). After a two-day simulator training, trainees showed a significant increase in performance. In group 5, participants scored 81 ± 17 points, which was significantly higher than the other groups (group 1: 75 ± 16; group 2: 75 ± 14; group 3: 69 ± 15; and group 4: 73 ± 13). While self-reported arthroscopic procedures were n.s. associated with higher log odds of passing the test (p = 0.423), the points scored in the pretest were found to be a good predictor of whether a trainee would pass the test (p < 0.05). A positive correlation was observed between the points scored in the pretest and the posttest (p < 0.05, r = 0.59, r2 = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: The number of previously performed arthroscopies is not a reliable indicator of the skills level of orthopaedic residents. A reasonable alternative in the future would be to verify arthroscopic proficiency on the simulator by means of a score as a pass-fail examination. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Arthroscopic approach in initial training: Study of a novice cohort using inverse direct and indirect approaches and its implication in the development of training programs.

INTRODUCTION: Arthroscopic training includes successive stages of observation, reproduction and then repetition. Learning through simulation in 2D virtual reality makes it possible to repeat these different stages to enhance the learner's experience in complete safety and a shorter timeframe. Some procedures require inversion of the optical and instrumental approaches in the axial plane, disrupting the existing psychomotor and technical skills. The objective of this study was to compare the degree of difficulty and the distribution of results for the same exercise carried out alternately in classical holding and inverted holding of the instruments in a cohort of novice learners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two medical students, novices in arthroscopic surgery, participated in the study. Each performed an exercise consisting of grasping ten targets with arthroscopic forceps and placing them in a basket on the VirtaMed ArthroS™ simulator. The exercise was performed with the scope and grasping instrument pointed away from the operator, "catch the stars front" (CTSF), then directed towards the operator, "catch the stars back" (CTSB). The simulator recorded several parameters making up an overall composite score ("overall performance score", OPS) out of 120 points. Voluntary abandonment of the exercise was also collected. RESULTS: All students completed the CTSF exercise but 6 dropped out of the CTSB exercise (27%, p=0.01). In the CTSF exercise, the average OPS was higher with 45.9 points versus 22.8 points in the CTSB exercise (p<0.001). By detailing the components of the OPS score, the parameters of interest on the Fundamentals of Arthroscopic Training (FAST) module of the simulator included: the distance traveled by the scope and the grasping forceps was significantly greater in the CTSB group (p<0.001), the duration of the exercise was significantly greater in the CTSB group (p<0.001), the time spent with the instruments in the videoscopic field was significantly lower in the CTSB group (p=0.001) and finally the absence of a significant difference in the camera alignment compared to the horizontal plane between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The exercise with the instruments directed towards the operator is more difficult with a greater distribution for all the secondary criteria except for the camera alignment, which suggests that it could be more discriminating. The dropout rate is also higher. It would therefore be interesting to introduce CTSB type training in initial training programs in arthroscopy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, comparative prospective study.

The role of virtual reality in knee arthroscopic simulation: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Surgical training is crucial for orthopedics residents during their educational careers. Residents who follow classic training courses are less skilled than those trained with simulators. Virtual simulators are reported to be global learning tools for knee arthroscopy. The primary purpose of our study is to evaluate the current state of use of arthroscopic knee simulators and their actual effectiveness in transfer the skills learned in training to the operating theatre. The secondary purpose is to evaluate if the virtual simulators are better than the others in improve arthroscopic skills. METHODS: Studies involving knee arthroscopy training with virtual reality simulators were included: a search of the literature from 2009 to September 2019 was performed on MEDLINE(PubMed) using PRISMA guidelines. Exclusion criteria were systematic review articles, aims and topics not related to the purpose of the study, single case and technical reports, biomechanical analysis, articles not in the English language, and editorial commentaries. RESULTS: The literature review selected, nine studies and they included results on 93 residents, three expert surgeons and 189 medical students. All studies report improved arthroscopic skills after training with a simulator. Only four studies evaluated the transfer of arthroscopic skills of knee simulators to the operating theatre. CONCLUSIONS: Benchtop and Virtual Reality simulators are excellent tools for accelerating and improving arthroscopic training and skills acquisition. The second ones, high-cost, and fidelity simulators, seem to be the best of the two. A greater diffusion of Virtual Reality in universities is to be considered to improve residents' training and patients' clinical outcomes.

Effective Skill Transfer From Fundamentals of Arthroscopic Surgery Training to Shoulder Arthroscopic Simulator in Novices.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether novices could improve performance on a shoulder arthroscopic simulator (high-fidelity) through short-term training on a Fundamentals of Arthroscopic Surgery Training (FAST) simulator (low-fidelity). METHODS: Twenty-eight novices with no experience in arthroscopy were recruited to perform a pre-test on a shoulder arthroscopic simulator. Then they were randomized into two groups: the experimental group practiced five modules on the FAST simulator three times, and the control group did nothing. The experimental group performed a post-test immediately after FAST simulator practice. Control group rested for 70 minutes after experiencing pre-test before performing post-test. All parameters were recorded by the simulator. RESULTS: The experimental group outperformed the control group in terms of total score, procedure time, camera path length, and grasper path length. However, there was no statistical difference in scratching of humerus cartilage or glenoid cartilage. Significant differences were found in the improvement of both groups in total score, procedure time, and camera path length. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic skills gained after short-term training on FAST simulator could be transferred to the shoulder arthroscopic simulator. This research provides important evidence of the benefits of FAST simulator in shoulder arthroscopy training program.

Validating low-fidelity arthroscopic simulation in medical students: a feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: With surgical opportunities becoming increasingly restricted for orthopaedic trainees, simulation training is a valuable alternative at providing sufficient practice. This pilot study aims to assess the potential effectiveness of low-fidelity simulation in teaching medical students basic arthroscopic skills and the feasibility of its incorporation into formal student training programmes. METHODS: Twenty-two medical students completed pre- and post-training tests on the Probing (Task 1) and Maze (Task 2) exercises from the Sawbones 'Fundamentals of Arthroscopy Surgery Training' (FAST) programme. Training consisted of practising horizon control, deliberate linear motion and probing within 25min over a period of days. Completion time and error frequency were measured. The difference in performance was assessed using a paired two-tailed t-test. Qualitative data were collected. RESULTS: Test completion time decreased significantly by a mean of 83s (±46s, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 37 to 129) for Task 1 (p=0.001) and 105s (±55s, 95% CI 50 to 160) for Task 2 (p=0.0007). Frequency of direct visualisation errors decreased significantly by a mean of 1.0 errors (±1.0 errors, 95% CI 0.1 to 2.0) for Task 1 (p = 0.04) and 0.8 errors (±0.8 errors, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.6) for Task 2 (p = 0.04). At post-training, 82% of participants were willing to incorporate FAST into formal training. CONCLUSIONS: Low-fidelity simulators such as FAST can potentially teach basic arthroscopic skills to medical students and are feasible for incorporation into formal training. They also give students a cost-effective and safe basic surgical training experience.

Learning and Short-Term Retention of Simulation-Based Arthroscopic Skills.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to examine the learning curve and short-term retention of arthroscopic skills acquired on a simulator. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Clinical Skills Training Center of Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University PARTICIPANT AND METHODS: Orthopaedic residents (n = 14) without previous arthroscopy experience were included. After basic information was collected and an initial arthroscopy knowledge level test was administered, the subjects received standardised training on the simulator (day 1); then, they completed tasks on the simulator, including guided diagnostics (4 times), triangulation (5 times) and loose body removal (7 times). A learning curve for each skill was generated based on the total scores. The score of the last repetition of each task was the training level. RESULTS: A total of 14 orthopedic residents were enrolled. All participants completed the training and testing. There was a learning curve over the course of training for all 3 arthroscopic skills (p < 0.001). On day 8 after the training, the mean score for guided diagnostics decreased from 49.9 to 48.9 (p = 0.001), and the retention rate was 97.8%. For triangulation, the mean total score decreased from 58.9 to 53.6 (p < 0.001), and the retention rate was 90.8%. For loose body removal, the mean total score decreased from 87.1 to 80.7 (p < 0.001), and the retention rate was 92.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic residents' arthroscopic skills learned through simulator training declined significantly in 1 week after the training, especially more difficult skills.

What is the place of wrist arthroscopy in surgical residents' training? Wrist Arthroscopy in Residents Survey (WARS).

INTRODUCTION: Wrist arthroscopy has become an essential method in the management of patients suffering from wrist pathologies. This technique must be mastered by residents wishing to specialize in upper limb surgery. However, no study has evaluated residents' access to wrist arthroscopy. HYPOTHESIS: Residents have difficulty accessing wrist arthroscopy surgery during their training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We sent out an online questionnaire to all orthopedic and plastic surgery referents in France. Data were collected over a 6-month period from December 2020 to May 2021. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Regarding the 98 responses obtained, we observed that 77.54% of residents have seen between 0 and 10 wrist arthroscopies and 35.71% have never seen a wrist arthroscopy. In addition, only 23.80% of residents have had access to training on cadavers, and 57.14% of residents were trained in private facilities. DISCUSSION: Access to the operating room remains difficult for residents in upper limb surgery. Our results suggest that wrist arthroscopy training could be improved. New training methods could be adapted for wrist arthroscopy and to overcome the lack of access to wrist arthroscopy for residents. LEVEL OF INCIDENCE: IV.

An investigation into gender bias in the evaluation of orthopedic trainee arthroscopic skills.

BACKGROUND: Women surgeons receive lower compensation, hold fewer academic positions, and hold fewer leadership positions than men, particularly in orthopedic surgery. Gender bias at the trainee level has been demonstrated in various surgical subspecialties, but there is a lack of information on gender bias within the orthopedic training environment. This study investigated whether implicit gender bias is present in the subjective evaluation of orthopedic trainee arthroscopic skills. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, a web-based survey was sent to American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) members via the society's email listserve. Study participants were informed that the study was being done to develop a systematic evaluation method for trainees. The survey randomized participants to view and evaluate a prefellowship and a postfellowship video of "Rachel" (she/her) or "Charles" (he/him) performing a 15-point diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy. The videos for Rachel and Charles were identical except for the pronouns used in the video. Participants evaluated the trainee's skill level using questions from the Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET). Blinded and deidentified additional comments regarding the trainee's skill were classified as positive, negative, or neutral. Statistical analyses were used to compare scores and comments between Rachel and Charles. RESULTS: Of 1115 active ASES members, 181 ASES members started the survey and 106 watched both videos and were included in the analysis. Of the 106 participants completing the survey, 96 (91%) were men and 10 (9%) were women with a median (interquartile range) age of 44 (38-51). A teaching role was reported by 84 of 106 participants (79%). There was no significant difference between prefellowship scores (P = .87) or between postfellowship scores (P = .84) for the woman and man fellow. The numbers of comments classified as positive, negative, or neutral were not significantly different between the man and woman fellow (P = .19). Participants in teaching roles gave significantly lower scores to both fellows at both time points (P = .04), and participants who had fellow trainees were more likely to give negative comments to both fellows (P = .02). DISCUSSION: Trainee gender did not influence the ratings and comments participants gave for trainee arthroscopic skills, suggesting that gender bias may not play a major role in the evaluation of arthroscopic skill during orthopedic training.

Early-Career Sports Medicine Surgeons Perform a Large Volume of Non-Sports Medicine Procedures: American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) Part-II Data Regarding Orthopaedic Surgeons Specializing in Sports Medicine.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to utilize the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) Part-II Case List database to (1) define the practice patterns of sports medicine-trained ABOS Part- II Oral Examination Candidates and (2) describe the frequency and practice patterns of individuals who are dual fellowship-trained sports medicine candidates. METHODS: The ABOS Part-II Case List database was utilized to define all cases submitted by 3,298 applicants indicating completion of a sports medicine fellowship between January 1, 2003, and January 1, 2020. Cases were classified by subspecialty category and case type. The frequency and practice patterns of candidates pursuing additional fellowship training (i.e., "dual fellowship-trained") were recorded. Descriptive statistical methods were used to describe the annual and overall procedure volume and candidate case mix. Trends in the relative frequency of cases performed and fellowship training patterns were determined using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: On average, sports medicine-trained candidates submitted 100.6 cases for review during the 6-month case collection period: 59.0 (58.6%) sports medicine/arthroscopy cases, 29.3 (29.1%) trauma/general cases, 4.5 (4.5%) adult reconstruction cases, and 7.8 (7.8%) "other" cases per candidate. Although candidates performed fewer total (r 2 = 0.84, p < 0.001) and sports medicine/arthroscopy (r 2 = 0.85, p < 0.001) cases over the study period, the proportion of sports medicine/arthroscopy cases did not change over the study period (p = 0.18). Dual fellowship training was indicated by 333 individuals (10.1%). The number of dual fellowship-trained candidates pursuing additional fellowship training in pediatrics and adult reconstruction increased over the study period, and the number of dual fellowship-trained candidates pursuing additional fellowship training in trauma decreased over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Early-career sports medicine candidates are likely to perform >40% of cases outside of the sports medicine subspecialty. Sports medicine trainees are increasingly likely to pursue a second fellowship in pediatrics or adult reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The frequency of assessment tools in arthroscopic training: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple assessment tools are used in arthroscopic training and play an important role in feedback. However, it is not fully recognized as to the standard way to apply these tools. Our study aimed to investigate the use of assessment tools in arthroscopic training and determine whether there is an optimal way to apply various assessment tools in arthroscopic training. METHODS: A search was performed using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library electronic databases for articles published in English from January 2000 to July 2021. Eligible for inclusion were primary research articles related to using assessment tools for the evaluation of arthroscopic skills and training environments. Studies that focussed only on therapeutic cases, did not report outcome measures of technical skills, or did not mention arthroscopic skills training were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included for review. Multiple assessment tools were used in arthroscopic training. The most common objective metric was completion time, reported in 21 studies. Technical parameters based on simulator or external equipment, such as instrument path length, hand movement, visual parameters and injury, were also widely used. Subjective assessment tools included checklists and global rating scales (GRS). Among these, the most commonly used GRS was the Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET). Most of the studies combined objective metrics and subjective assessment scales in the evaluation of arthroscopic skill training. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, both subjective and objective assessment tools can be used as feedback for basic arthroscopic skill training, but there are still differences in the frequency of application in different contexts. Despite this, combined use of subjective and objective assessment tools can be applied to more situations and skills and can be the optimal way for assessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of level I to III studies. Key messagesBoth subjective and objective assessment tools can be used as feedback for basic arthroscopic skill training.Combined use of subjective and objective assessment tools can be applied to more situations and skills and can be the optimal way for assessment.

Hand dominance and experience improve bimanual performance on arthroscopic simulator task.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify if experience in arthroscopy confers ambidexterity to the operator and the role of baseline characteristics in arthroscopic simulator performance. METHODS: A prospective comparative study was carried out across four regional Orthopaedic training centres. Participants were divided into novice, intermediate or experienced groups based on arthroscopic experience. Baseline demographics including age, sex, handedness, and gaming history were also collected. Following familiarisation with the procedure, participants were asked to complete a simulated task requiring bimanual control consisting of visualisation with camera control and manipulation of highlighted objects using a grasping instrument. One attempt using camera control and grasping accuracy per hand was performed by each participant, with scores for each hand collected for analysis. Performance scores for camera alignment, camera path length, grasper path length and grasping efficiency were collected. Time taken to completion was also noted for each attempt. RESULTS: Fifty-six participants were recruited to the study. A significant difference in grasping efficiency between groups in the dominant hand was demonstrated (p = 0.013). Novices demonstrated laterality with superior performance in grasping efficiency in the dominant hand (p = 0.001). No significant difference was noted between dominant and non-dominant hand performance in the experienced group. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic simulation-based training is a valuable learning tool for orthopaedic training. This study demonstrated that experienced orthopaedic surgeons have a greater degree of ambidexterity than intermediate or novice groups, hypothesised by authors to be conferred through conventional orthopaedic training. Dedicated bimanual control tasks to reduce laterality in trainees should be incorporated in simulated surgical curricula. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Ten hours of simulator training in arthroscopy are insufficient to reach the target level based on the Diagnostic Arthroscopic Skill Score.

PURPOSE: Simulator arthroscopy training has gained popularity in recent years. However, it remains unclear what level of competency surgeons may achieve in what time frame using virtual training. It was hypothesized that 10 h of training would be sufficient to reach the target level defined by experts based on the Diagnostic Arthroscopic Skill Score (DASS). METHODS: The training concept was developed by ten instructors affiliated with the German-speaking Society of Arthroscopy and Joint Surgery (AGA). The programme teaches the basics of performing arthroscopy; the main focus is on learning and practicing manual skills using a simulator. The training was based on a structured programme of exercises designed to help users reach defined learning goals. Initially, camera posture, horizon adjustment and control of the direction of view were taught in a virtual room. Based on these skills, further training was performed with a knee model. The learning progress was assessed by quantifying the exercise time, camera path length and instrument path length for selected tasks. At the end of the course, the learners' performance in diagnostic arthroscopy was evaluated using DASS. Participants were classified as novice or competent based on the number of arthroscopies performed prior to the assessment. RESULTS: Except for one surgeon, 131 orthopaedic residents and surgeons (29 women, 102 men) who participated in the seven courses agreed to anonymous data analysis. Fifty-eight of them were competents with more than ten independently performed arthroscopies, and 73 were novices, with fewer than ten independently performed arthroscopies. There were significant reductions in exercise time, camera path length and instrument path length for all participants after the training, indicating a rapid increase in performance. No difference in camera handling between the dominant and non-dominant sides was found in either group. The competents performed better than the novices in various tasks and achieved significantly better DASS values on the final performance test. CONCLUSIONS: Our data have demonstrated that arthroscopic skills can be taught effectively on a simulator, but a 10-h course is not sufficient to reach the target level set by experienced arthroscopists. However, learning progress can be monitored more objectively during simulator training than in the operating room, and simulation may partially replace the current practice of arthroscopic training. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Validation of virtual reality arthroscopy simulator relevance in characterising experienced surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) simulation is particularly suitable for learning arthroscopy skills. Despite significant research, one drawback often outlined is the difficulty in distinguishing performance levels (Construct Validity) in experienced surgeons. Therefore, it seems adequate to search new methods of performance measurements using probe trajectories instead of commonly used metrics. HYPOTHESIS: It was hypothesized that a larger experience in surgical shoulder arthroscopy would be correlated with better performance on a VR shoulder arthroscopy simulator and that experienced operators would share similar probe trajectories. MATERIALS & METHODS: After answering to standardized questionnaires, 104 trajectories from 52 surgeons divided into 2 cohorts (26 intermediates and 26 experts) were recorded on a shoulder arthroscopy simulator. The procedure analysed was the "loose body removal" in a right shoulder joint. 10 metrics were computed on the trajectories including procedure duration, overall path length, economy of motion and smoothness. Additionally, Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) was computed on the trajectories for unsupervised hierarchical clustering of the surgeons. RESULTS: Experts were significantly faster (Median 70.9s Interquartile range [56.4-86.3] vs. 116.1s [82.8-154.2], p<0.01), more fluid (4.6.105mm.s-3 [3.1.105-7.2.105] vs. 1.5.106mm.s-3 [2.6.106-3.5.106], p=0.05), and economical in their motion (19.3mm2 [9.1-25.9] vs. 33.8mm2 [14.8-50.5], p<0.01), but there was no significant difference in performance for path length (671.4mm [503.8-846.1] vs 694.6mm [467.0-1090.1], p=0.62). The DTW clustering differentiates two expertise related groups of trajectories with performance similarities, respectively including 48 expert trajectories for the first group and 52 intermediates and 4 expert trajectories for the second group (Sensitivity of 92%, Specificity of 100%). Hierarchical clustering with DTW significantly identified expert operators from intermediate operators and found trajectory similarities among 24/26 experts. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the Construct Validity of the VR shoulder arthroscopy simulator within groups of experienced surgeons. With new types of metrics simply based on the simulator's raw trajectories, it was possible to significantly distinguish levels of expertise. We demonstrated that clustering analysis with Dynamic Time Warping was able to reliably discriminate between expert operators and intermediate operators. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results have implications for the future of arthroscopic surgical training or post-graduate accreditation programs using virtual reality simulation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; prospective comparative study.

Learning and optimizing arthroscopic knot-tying by surgery residents using procedural simulation.

INTRODUCTION: Procedural training of orthopedic surgery residents includes learning arthroscopic knot-tying. The models used comprise arthroscopy training modules of increasing complexity, although there is no procedural training guide for the acquisition of arthroscopic knot-tying skills. Few studies have focused on how residents learn arthroscopic knot-tying. The aim of our study was to determine the type of arthroscopic knot that is the easiest to perform and learn and that can be done the most successfully by orthopedic surgery residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each participant had to learn five knots in a random order: Tennessee slider, Duncan loop, Revo knot (Surgeon's knot), Nicky knot, and the SMC (Samsung Medical Center) knot. The FAST Arthroscopy Workstation™ (Sawbones, Vashon Island, WA) was used for this study. Each participant could use a FAST Knot Tester™ (Sawbones®, Vashon Island, WA) to evaluate by themselves the biomechanical properties of the knots to optimize learning. Each participant had to rank how easy it was to learn this knot on a visual scale from 0 to 10. They also had to rank the reliability of the knots done on a visual scale from 0 to 10. Then, an independent rater assessed whether the knots were completed successfully; a knot was considered successful if it stretched by less than 3 mm when 60 N of load was applied. RESULTS: Ten participants were included in the study; 250 knots were done and evaluated. When ranked from simplest to most complicated, the easiest knot to learn was the Surgeon's knot, followed by the Duncan loop, Tennessee slider, Nicky knot and SMC knot (p<0.0001). The overall success rate for the knots was 80%. There was a statistical trend for the Nicky being done better than the other arthroscopic knots (88% success rate). CONCLUSION: For orthopedics surgery residents, the surgeon's knot (Revo knot) was the easiest to learn, while the Nicky knot had the highest success rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II; prospective, randomized study with low power.