Search

Purpose: To assess a new method for biomechanical assessment of arthroscopic knots and to establish proficiency benchmarks using the Fundamentals of Arthroscopic Surgery Training (FAST) Program workstation and knot tester., Methods: The first study group included 20 faculty at an Arthroscopy Association of North America resident arthroscopy course (19.9 ± 8.25 years in practice). The second group comprised 30 experienced surgeons attending an Arthroscopy Association of North America fall course (17.1 ± 19.3 years in practice). The training group included 44 postgraduate year 4 or 5 orthopaedic residents in a randomized, prospective study of proficiency-based training, with 3 subgroups: group A, standard training (n = 14); group B, workstation practice (n = 14); and group C, proficiency-based progression using the knot tester (n = 16). Each subject tied 5 arthroscopic knots backed up by 3 reversed hitches on alternating posts. Knots were tied under video control around a metal mandrel through a cannula within an opaque dome (FAST workstation). Each suture loop was stressed statically at 15 lb for 15 seconds. A calibrated sizer measured loop expansion. Knot failure was defined as 3 mm of loop expansion or greater., Results: In the faculty group, 24% of knots "failed" under load. Performance was inconsistent: 12 faculty had all knots pass, whereas 2 had all knots fail. In the second group of practicing surgeons, 21% of the knots failed under load. Overall, 56 of 250 knots (22%) tied by experienced surgeons failed. For the postgraduate year 4 or 5 residents, the aggregate knot failure rate was 26% for the 220 knots tied. Group C residents had an 11% knot failure rate (half the overall faculty rate, P = .013)., Conclusions: The FAST workstation and knot tester offer a simple and reproducible educational approach for enhancement of arthroscopic knot-tying skills. Our data suggest that there is significant room for improvement in the quality and consistency of these important arthroscopic skills, even for experienced arthroscopic surgeons., Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective comparative study., (Copyright © 2015 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of proficiency-based progression (PBP) training using simulation both compared with the same training without proficiency requirements and compared with a traditional resident course for learning to perform an arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR)., Methods: In a prospective, randomized, blinded study, 44 postgraduate year 4 or 5 orthopaedic residents from 21 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved US orthopaedic residency programs were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 skills training protocols for learning to perform an ABR: group A, traditional (routine Arthroscopy Association of North America Resident Course) (control, n = 14); group B, simulator (modified curriculum adding a shoulder model simulator) (n = 14); or group C, PBP (PBP plus the simulator) (n = 16). At the completion of training, all subjects performed a 3 suture anchor ABR on a cadaveric shoulder, which was videotaped and scored in blinded fashion with the use of previously validated metrics., Results: The PBP-trained group (group C) made 56% fewer objectively assessed errors than the traditionally trained group (group A) (P = .011) and 41% fewer than group B (P = .049) (both comparisons were statistically significant). The proficiency benchmark was achieved on the final repair by 68.7% of participants in group C compared with 36.7% in group B and 28.6% in group A. When compared with group A, group B participants were 1.4 times, group C participants were 5.5 times, and group C(PBP) participants (who met all intermediate proficiency benchmarks) were 7.5 times as likely to achieve the final proficiency benchmark., Conclusions: A PBP training curriculum and protocol coupled with the use of a shoulder model simulator and previously validated metrics produces a superior arthroscopic Bankart skill set when compared with traditional and simulator-enhanced training methods., Clinical Relevance: Surgical training combining PBP and a simulator is efficient and effective. Patient safety could be improved if surgical trainees participated in PBP training using a simulator before treating surgical patients., (Copyright © 2015 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)