Search

Purpose: To investigate the impact of a proficiency-based progression (PBP) curriculum employed to teach trainees in the skills needed to demonstrate proficiency for an arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) and an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) by objectively comparing pre- and immediate postcourse performances., Methods: In a prospective study, 16 arthroscopy/sports medicine fellows and 2 senior residents (complete group: N = 18) were randomly assigned to perform a precourse cadaveric ABR (Bankart subgroup: N = 6), ARCR (cuff subgroup: N = 6), or basic skills on a shoulder simulator (N = 6). After completing a PBP training curriculum, all 18 registrants performed both an ABR and ARCR scored in real time by trained raters using previously validated metrics., Results: The Bankart subgroup made 58% fewer objectively assessed errors at the completion of the course than at baseline (P = .004, confidence interval -1.449 to -0.281), and performance variability was substantially reduced (standard deviation = 5.89 vs 2.81). The cuff subgroup also made 58% fewer errors (P = .001, confidence interval -1.376 to 0.382) and showed a similar reduction in performance variability (standard deviation = 5.42 vs 2.1). Only one subject's precourse baseline performance met the proficiency benchmark compared with 89% and 83% of the all registrants on the final ABR and ARCR cadaveric assessments, respectively., Conclusions: The results of this study reject the null hypothesis. They demonstrate that the implementation of a PBP simulation curriculum to train the skills necessary to perform arthroscopic Bankart and rotator cuff repairs results in a large and statistically significant improvement in the trainee's ability to meet the 2 related performance benchmarks. Proficiency was demonstrated by 89% and 83% of the trainees for an ABR and an ARCR, respectively, in a two- and one-half day course., Clinical Relevance: Surgical training employing a PBP curriculum is efficient, effective, and has the potential to improve patient safety., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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.)

Purpose: To determine if a dry shoulder model simulator coupled with previously validated performance metrics for an arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) would be a valid tool with the ability to discriminate between the performance of experienced and novice surgeons, and to establish a proficiency benchmark for an ABR using a model simulator., Methods: We compared an experienced group of arthroscopic shoulder surgeons (Arthroscopy Association of North America faculty) (n = 12) with a novice group (n = 7) (postgraduate year 4 or 5 orthopaedic residents). All surgeons were instructed to perform a diagnostic arthroscopy and a 3 suture anchor Bankart repair on a dry shoulder model. Each procedure was videotaped in its entirety and scored in blinded fashion independently by 2 trained reviewers. Scoring used previously validated metrics for an ABR and included steps, errors, and "sentinel" (more serious) errors., Results: The inter-rater reliability among pairs of raters averaged 0.93. The experienced group made 63% fewer errors, committed 79% fewer sentinel errors, and performed the procedure in 42% less time than the novice group (all significant differences). The greatest difference in errors between the groups involved anchor preparation and insertion, suture delivery and management, and knot tying., Conclusions: The tool comprised by validated ABR metrics coupled with a dry shoulder model simulator is able to accurately distinguish between the performance of experienced and novice orthopaedic surgeons. A performance benchmark based on the mean performance of the experienced group includes completion of a 3 anchor Bankart repair, enacting no more than 4 total errors and 1 sentinel error., Clinical Relevance: The combination of performance metrics and an arthroscopic shoulder model simulator can be used to improve the effectiveness of surgical skills training for an ABR. The methodology used may serve as a template for outcomes-based procedural skills training in general., (Copyright © 2015 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine if previously validated performance metrics for an arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) coupled with a cadaveric shoulder are a valid assessment tool with the ability to discriminate between the performances of experienced and novice surgeons and to establish a proficiency benchmark for an ABR using a cadaveric shoulder., Methods: Ten master/associate master faculty from an Arthroscopy Association of North America Resident Course (experienced group) were compared with 12 postgraduate year 4 and postgraduate year 5 orthopaedic residents (novice group). Each group was instructed to perform a diagnostic arthroscopy and a 3 suture anchor Bankart repair on a cadaveric shoulder. The procedure was videotaped in its entirety and independently scored in blinded fashion by a pair of trained reviewers. Scoring was based on defined and previously validated metrics for an ABR and included steps, errors, "sentinel" (more serious) errors, and time., Results: The inter-rater reliability was 0.92. Novice surgeons made 50% more errors (5.86 v 2.95, P = .013), showed more performance variability (SD, 1.86 v 0.55), and took longer to perform the procedure (45.5 minutes v 25.9 minutes, P < .001). The greatest difference in errors related to suture delivery and management (exclusive of knot tying) (1.95 v 0.45, P = .024)., Conclusions: The assessment tool composed of validated arthroscopic Bankart metrics coupled with a cadaveric shoulder accurately distinguishes the performance of experienced from novice orthopaedic surgeons. A benchmark based on the mean performance of the experienced group includes completion of a 3-anchor Bankart repair, and enacting no more than 3 total errors and 1 sentinel error., Clinical Relevance: Validated procedural metrics combined with the use of a cadaveric shoulder can be used to assess the performance of an ABR. The methodology used may serve as a template for outcomes-based procedural skills training in general., (Copyright © 2015 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To establish the metrics (operational definitions) necessary to characterize a reference arthroscopic Bankart procedure, and to seek consensus from experienced shoulder arthroscopists on the appropriateness of the steps, as well as errors identified., Methods: Three experienced arthroscopic shoulder surgeons and an experimental psychologist (comprising the Metrics Group) deconstructed an arthroscopic Bankart procedure. Fourteen full-length videos were analyzed to identify the essential steps and potential errors. Sentinel (i.e., more serious) errors were defined as either (1) potentially jeopardizing the procedure outcome or (2) creating iatrogenic damage to the shoulder. The metrics were stress tested for clarity and the ability to be scored in binary fashion during a video review as either occurring or not occurring. The metrics were subjected to analysis by a panel of 27 experienced arthroscopic shoulder surgeons to obtain face and content validity using a modified Delphi Panel methodology (consensus opinion of experienced surgeons rendered by cyclical deliberations)., Results: Forty-five steps and 13 phases characterizing an arthroscopic Bankart procedure were identified. Seventy-seven procedural errors were specified, with 20 designated as sentinel errors. The modified Delphi Panel deliberation created the following changes: 2 metrics were deleted, 1 was added, and 5 were modified. Consensus on the resulting Bankart metrics was obtained and face and content validity verified., Conclusions: This study confirms that a core group of experienced arthroscopic surgeons is able to perform task deconstruction of an arthroscopic Bankart repair and create unambiguous step and error definitions (metrics) that accurately characterize the essential components of the procedure. Analysis and revision by a larger panel of experienced arthroscopists were able to validate the Bankart metrics., Clinical Relevance: The ability to perform task deconstruction and validate the resulting metrics will play a key role in improving surgical skills training and assessing trainee progression toward proficiency., (Copyright © 2015 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)