Search

BackgroundThe introduction of robot-assisted surgery is costly and requires whole system transformation, which makes the assessment of benefits (or drawbacks) complex. To date, there has been little agreement on which outcomes should be used in this regard. The aim of the RoboCOS study was to develop a core outcome set for the evaluation of robot-assisted surgery that would account for its impact on the whole system.MethodsIdentification of a long-list of potentially relevant outcomes through systematic review of trials and health technology assessments; interviews with individuals from a range of stakeholder groups (surgeons, service managers, policy makers and evaluators) and a focus group with patients and public; prioritisation of outcomes via a 2-round online international Delphi survey; consensus meeting.Results721 outcomes were extracted from the systematic reviews, interviews and focus group which were conceptualised into 83 different outcome domains across four distinct levels (patient, surgeon, organisation and population) for inclusion in the international Delphi prioritisation survey (128 completed both rounds). The consensus meeting led to the agreement of a 10-item core outcome set including outcomes at: patient level (treatment effectiveness; overall quality of life; disease-specific quality of life; complications (including mortality); surgeon level (precision/accuracy; visualisation); organisation (equipment failure; standardisation of operative quality; cost-effectiveness); and population (equity of access).ConclusionThe RoboCOS core outcome set, which includes the outcomes of importance to all stakeholders, is recommended for use in all future evaluations of robot-assisted surgery to ensure relevant and comparable reporting of outcomes.

Introduction Accurate acetabular cup and femoral stem component orientation are critical for optimising patient outcomes, reducing complications and increasing component longevity following total hip replacement (THR). This study aimed to determine the accuracy of a novel virtual reality (VR) platform in assessing component orientation in a simulated THR model. Methods The VR platform (HTC Vive Pro® system hardware) was compared against the validated Vicon® optical motion capture (MoCap) system. An acetabular cup and femoral stem were manually implanted across a range of orientations into pelvic and femur sawbones, respectively. Simultaneous readings of the acetabular cup operative anteversion (OA) and inclination (OI) and femoral stem alignment (FSA) and neck anteversion (FNA) were obtained from the VR and MoCap systems. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (PPMCC) (Pearson’s r) and linear regression (R 2 ). Results A total of 55 readings were obtained for the acetabular cup and 68 for the femoral stem model. The mean average differences in OA, OI, FSA and FNA between the systems were 3.44°, −0.01°, 0.01° and −0.04°, respectively. Strong positive correlations were demonstrated between both systems in OA, OI, FSA and FNA, with Pearson’s r = 0.92, 0.94, 0.99 and 0.99, and adjusted R 2 = 0.82, 0.9, 0.98 and 0.98, respectively. Conclusion The novel VR platform is highly accurate and reliable in determining both acetabular cup and femoral stem component orientations in simulated THR models. This adaptable and cost-effective digital tracking platform may be modified for use in a range of simulated surgical training and educational purposes, particularly in orthopaedic surgery.

Infections of the hand and wrist are thankfully rare, but they present esoterically dependent on the specific structures involved. When underappreciated, they lead to delayed or incomplete management and destruction of highly specialized functional anatomy in the hand which results in significant disability. The general signs, symptoms and investigations for infections in the hand mirror infections elsewhere, but the variety of potential spaces in the hand mean there is no single sensitive indicator clinically, biochemically or radiologically. A high index of suspicion and understanding of the anatomy which affects the presentation, progression, treatment and complications of hand infections is required. This review describes the specific anatomy to be aware of to diagnose and manage hand infections completely, and highlights the near universal requirement for surgery to adequately clear infections in the hand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The thumb is a key feature in the function of the human hand. Its evolutionary adaptations predispose it to degenerative change and thumb base osteoarthritis is a common presentation to primary and secondary care. Radiographic changes are recognized as a normal part of ageing, and it is important to distinguish radiographic from symptomatic thumb base osteoarthritis. The majority of patients can be managed non-operatively with a combination of oral and topical analgesia, physiotherapy, splintage, activity modification and injections. For failed non-operative management, the trapeziectomy (excision arthroplasty) is the commonest procedure and rates are rising, but a number of surgical options exist, and one must consider the patient's requirements and the involvement of the whole 'thumb column'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine whether a virtual reality (VR) arthroscopy simulator or benchtop (BT) arthroscopy simulator showed superiority as a training tool.Methods: Arthroscopic novices were randomized to a training program on a BT or a VR knee arthroscopy simulator. The VR simulator provided user performance feedback. Individuals performed a diagnostic arthroscopy on both simulators before and after the training program. Performance was assessed using wireless objective motion analysis and a global rating scale.Results: The groups (8 in the VR group, 9 in the BT group) were well matched at baseline across all parameters (P > .05). Training on each simulator resulted in significant performance improvements across all parameters (P < .05). BT training conferred a significant improvement in all parameters when trainees were reassessed on the VR simulator (P < .05). In contrast, VR training did not confer improvement in performance when trainees were reassessed on the BT simulator (P > .05). BT-trained subjects outperformed VR-trained subjects in all parameters during final assessments on the BT simulator (P < .05). There was no difference in objective performance between VR-trained and BT-trained subjects on final VR simulator wireless objective motion analysis assessment (P > .05).Conclusions: Both simulators delivered improvements in arthroscopic skills. BT training led to skills that readily transferred to the VR simulator. Skills acquired after VR training did not transfer as readily to the BT simulator. Despite trainees receiving automated metric feedback from the VR simulator, the results suggest a greater gain in psychomotor skills for BT training. Further work is required to determine if this finding persists in the operating room.Clinical Relevance: This study suggests that there are differences in skills acquired on different simulators and skills learnt on some simulators may be more transferable. Further work in identifying user feedback metrics that enhance learning is also required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To objectively investigate the transfer validity of simulation training using wireless elbow-worn motion sensors intraoperatively to assess whether surgical simulation leads to improvements in intraoperative arthroscopic performance.Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, postgraduate year 2 to 3 trainees in nationally approved orthopaedic surgery posts were randomized to standard junior residency training (control group) or standard training plus additional weekly simulation training (intervention group). Both groups performed a supervised real-life diagnostic knee arthroscopy in the operating room at 13 weeks. Performance was measured using wireless elbow-worn motion sensors recording objective surgical performance metrics: number of hand movements, smoothness, and time taken. A participant-supervisor performance ratio was used to adjust for variation in case mix and difficulty. The study took place in a surgical simulation suite and the orthopaedic operating rooms of a university teaching hospital.Results: The intervention group objectively outperformed the control group in all outcome metrics. Procedures performed by the intervention group required fewer hand movements (544 [interquartile range (IQR), 465-593] vs 893 [IQR, 747-1,242]; P < .001), had smoother movements (25,842 ms-3 [IQR, 20,867-27,468 ms-3] vs 36,846 ms-3 [IQR, 29,840-53,949 ms-3]; P < .001), and took less time (320 seconds [IQR, 294-392 seconds] vs 573 seconds [IQR, 477-860 seconds]; P < .001) than those performed by the control group. The cases were comparable between the groups. Standardized to the supervisor's performance, the intervention group required fewer hand movements (1.9 [IQR, 1.5-2.1] vs 3.3 [IQR, 2.2-4.8]; P = .0091), required less time (1.2 [IQR, 1.1-1.7] vs 2.6 [IQR, 1.6-3.0]; P = .0037), and were smoother (2.1 [IQR, 1.8-2.8] vs 4.3 [IQR, 2.8-5.4]; P = .0037) than the control group, but they did not perform as well as their supervisors.Conclusions: This study uses intraoperative motion-analysis technology to objectively show that surgical simulation training improves actual intraoperative technical skills performance.Clinical Relevance: The described wireless objective assessment method complements the subjective observational performance assessments commonly used. Further studies are required to assess how these measures of intraoperative performance correlate to patient outcomes. Intraoperative motion analysis is translatable across surgical specialties, offering potential for objective assessment of progression through competency-based training, revalidation, and talent selection for specialist training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of operating surgeon grade and level of supervision on the incidence of one-year patient mortality and all-cause revision following elective primary total hip replacement (THR)., Methods: National Joint Registry data from 2005 to 2020 for a single University Teaching Hospital were used, with analysis performed on the 15-year dataset divided into 5-year block periods (B1, 2005-2010; B2, 2010-2015; B3, 2015-2020). Outcome measures were mortality and revision surgery at one year, in relation to lead surgeon grade, and level of supervision for trainee-led (TL) operations., Results: A total of 9,999 eligible primary THRs were performed, of which 5,526 (55.3%) were consultant-led (CL), and 4,473 (44.7%) TL. Of TL, 2,404 (53.7%) were nonconsultant-supervised (TU) and 2,069 (46.3%) consultant-supervised (TS). The incidence of one-year patient mortality was 2.05% ( n =205), and all-cause revision was 1.11% ( n =111). There was no difference in one-year mortality between TL and CL operations ( p =0.20, odds ratio (OR) 0.78, confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.10). The incidence of one-year revision was not different for TL and CL operations ( p =0.15, OR 1.37, CI 0.89-2.09). Overall, there was no temporal change for either outcome measure between TL or CL operations. A significant increase in revision within one-year was observed in B3 between TU compared with CL operations ( p =0.005, OR 2.81, CI 1.35-5.87)., Conclusions: We found no difference in overall one-year mortality or all-cause revision rate between TL and CL primary THR. Despite a reduction in unsupervised THR in the latest five-year period (2015-2020), unsupervised TL THR resulted in an increased risk of early revision.

Purpose: To objectively investigate the transfer validity of simulation training using wireless elbow-worn motion sensors intraoperatively to assess whether surgical simulation leads to improvements in intraoperative arthroscopic performance., Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, postgraduate year 2 to 3 trainees in nationally approved orthopaedic surgery posts were randomized to standard junior residency training (control group) or standard training plus additional weekly simulation training (intervention group). Both groups performed a supervised real-life diagnostic knee arthroscopy in the operating room at 13 weeks. Performance was measured using wireless elbow-worn motion sensors recording objective surgical performance metrics: number of hand movements, smoothness, and time taken. A participant-supervisor performance ratio was used to adjust for variation in case mix and difficulty. The study took place in a surgical simulation suite and the orthopaedic operating rooms of a university teaching hospital., Results: The intervention group objectively outperformed the control group in all outcome metrics. Procedures performed by the intervention group required fewer hand movements (544 [interquartile range (IQR), 465-593] vs 893 [IQR, 747-1,242]; P < .001), had smoother movements (25,842 ms -3 [IQR, 20,867-27,468 ms -3 ] vs 36,846 ms -3 [IQR, 29,840-53,949 ms -3 ]; P < .001), and took less time (320 seconds [IQR, 294-392 seconds] vs 573 seconds [IQR, 477-860 seconds]; P < .001) than those performed by the control group. The cases were comparable between the groups. Standardized to the supervisor's performance, the intervention group required fewer hand movements (1.9 [IQR, 1.5-2.1] vs 3.3 [IQR, 2.2-4.8]; P = .0091), required less time (1.2 [IQR, 1.1-1.7] vs 2.6 [IQR, 1.6-3.0]; P = .0037), and were smoother (2.1 [IQR, 1.8-2.8] vs 4.3 [IQR, 2.8-5.4]; P = .0037) than the control group, but they did not perform as well as their supervisors., Conclusions: This study uses intraoperative motion-analysis technology to objectively show that surgical simulation training improves actual intraoperative technical skills performance., Clinical Relevance: The described wireless objective assessment method complements the subjective observational performance assessments commonly used. Further studies are required to assess how these measures of intraoperative performance correlate to patient outcomes. Intraoperative motion analysis is translatable across surgical specialties, offering potential for objective assessment of progression through competency-based training, revalidation, and talent selection for specialist training., (Copyright © 2019 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The assessment of surgical trainees has become well-established in practice; however, this is not yet the case for surgical trainers. The aim of this study was to develop a trainer assessment questionnaire (OxTrAQ) based on the 12 key trainer attributes identified by a previous systematic review, to then explore this questionnaire's potential domains and test its reliability., Methods: The OxTrAQ was piloted at two surgical training centres in two surgical sub-specialities. At each centre, every trainee assessed every trainer while under their clinical supervision., Results: Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was calculated for this 12-item questionnaire as 0.958. Factor analysis revealed two domains which accounted for 77.997% of the variance; these were the general domain (nine items) and the independence domain (three items). Inter-observer reliability was shown by the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) (average measures) for the overall OxTrAQ score, general domain score and independence domain score which were 0.951, 0.945 and 0.955 for centre 1 and 0.857, 0.819 and 0.883 for centre 2, respectively. Intra-observer reliability was shown by the ICCs (average measures) for the overall OxTrAQ score, general domain score and independence domain score which were 0.925, 0.913 and 0.940, respectively. Construct validity was demonstrated by a high correlation (Spearman rho = 0.886, P = 0.019) between trainer scores and the scores predicted by the trainers themselves., Conclusions: The OxTrAQ is a simple trainer assessment questionnaire which has demonstrated both high inter- and intra-observer reliability., (© 2017 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.)

Purpose: To determine whether a virtual reality (VR) arthroscopy simulator or benchtop (BT) arthroscopy simulator showed superiority as a training tool., Methods: Arthroscopic novices were randomized to a training program on a BT or a VR knee arthroscopy simulator. The VR simulator provided user performance feedback. Individuals performed a diagnostic arthroscopy on both simulators before and after the training program. Performance was assessed using wireless objective motion analysis and a global rating scale., Results: The groups (8 in the VR group, 9 in the BT group) were well matched at baseline across all parameters (P > .05). Training on each simulator resulted in significant performance improvements across all parameters (P < .05). BT training conferred a significant improvement in all parameters when trainees were reassessed on the VR simulator (P < .05). In contrast, VR training did not confer improvement in performance when trainees were reassessed on the BT simulator (P > .05). BT-trained subjects outperformed VR-trained subjects in all parameters during final assessments on the BT simulator (P < .05). There was no difference in objective performance between VR-trained and BT-trained subjects on final VR simulator wireless objective motion analysis assessment (P > .05)., Conclusions: Both simulators delivered improvements in arthroscopic skills. BT training led to skills that readily transferred to the VR simulator. Skills acquired after VR training did not transfer as readily to the BT simulator. Despite trainees receiving automated metric feedback from the VR simulator, the results suggest a greater gain in psychomotor skills for BT training. Further work is required to determine if this finding persists in the operating room., Clinical Relevance: This study suggests that there are differences in skills acquired on different simulators and skills learnt on some simulators may be more transferable. Further work in identifying user feedback metrics that enhance learning is also required., (Copyright © 2016 Arthroscopy Association of North America. All rights reserved.)

Background: Arthroscopic surgery of the knee is one of the most frequently performed orthopaedic procedures. One-third of these procedures are performed for meniscal injuries. It is essential that this commonly performed surgery be supported by robust evidence., Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of arthroscopic surgery for meniscal injuries in all populations., Study Design: Systematic review., Methods: An online search was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) that compared treatment options for meniscal injury. The following databases (inception to April 2015) were included in the search: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; EMBASE; NHS Evidence; National Guideline Clearing House, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment; ISRCTN; Clinicaltrials.gov ; WHO trials platform. Only studies whose participants were selected on the basis of meniscal injury were included; no restrictions were placed on patient demographics. Two independent reviewers applied AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) criteria for SRs and the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool for RCTs., Results: Nine RCTs and 8 SRs were included in the review. No difference was found between arthroscopic meniscal debridement compared with nonoperative management as a first-line treatment strategy for patients with knee pain and a degenerative meniscal tear (mean difference: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, 1.6 [95% CI, -2.2 to 5.2], pain visual analog scale, -0.06 [95% CI, -0.28 to 0.15]). Some evidence was found to indicate that patients with resistant mechanical symptoms who initially fail nonoperative management may benefit from meniscal debridement No studies compared meniscal repair with meniscectomy or nonoperative management. Initial evidence suggested that meniscal transplant might be favorable in certain patient groups., Conclusion: Further evidence is required to determine which patient groups have good outcomes from each intervention. Given the current widespread use of arthroscopic meniscal surgeries, more research is urgently needed to support evidence-based practice in meniscal surgery in order to reduce the numbers of ineffective interventions and support potentially beneficial surgery.

Background: Traumatic anterior shoulder instability (TASI) accounts for 95% of glenohumeral dislocations and is associated with soft tissue and bony pathoanatomies. Non-operative treatments include slings, bracing and physiotherapy. Operative treatment is common, including bony and soft-tissue reconstructions performed through open or arthroscopic approaches. There is management variation in patient pathways for TASI including when to refer and when to operate., Methods: A scoping review of systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, comparing operative with non-operative treatments and different operative treatments were the methods followed. Search was conducted for online bibliographic databases and reference lists of relevant articles from 2002 to 2012. Systematic reviews were appraised using AMSTAR (assessment of multiple systematic reviews) criteria. Controlled trials were appraised using the CONSORT (consolidation of standards of reporting trials) tool., Results: Analysis of the reviews did not offer strong evidence for a best treatment option for TASI. No studies directly compare open, arthroscopic and structured rehabilitation programmes. Evaluation of arthroscopic studies and comparison to open procedures was difficult, as many of the arthroscopic techniques included are no longer used. Recurrence rate was generally considered the best measure of operative success, but was poorly documented throughout all studies. There was conflicting evidence on the optimal timing of intervention and no consensus on any scoring system or outcome measure., Conclusions: There is no agreement about which validated outcome tool should be used for assessing shoulder instability in patients. There is limited evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical treatment of TASI, including a lack of evidence regarding the optimal timing of such treatments. There is a need for a well-structured randomised control trial to assess the efficacy of surgical and non-surgical interventions for this common type of shoulder instability., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether the use of warm or cold blood cardioplegia has superior myocardial protection. More than 192 papers were found using the reported search, of which 20 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date, country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. A good breadth of high-level evidence addressing this clinical dilemma is available, including a recent meta-analysis and multiple large randomized clinical trials. Yet despite this level of evidence, no clear significant clinical benefit has been demonstrated by warm or cold blood cardioplegia. This suggests that neither method is significantly superior and that both provide similar efficacy of myocardial protection. The meta-analysis, including 41 randomized control trials (5879 patients in total), concluded that although a lower cardiac enzyme release and improved postoperative cardiac index was demonstrated in the warm cardioplegia group, this benefit was not reflected in clinical outcomes, which were similar in both groups. This theme of benefit in biochemical markers, physiological metrics and non-fatal postoperative events in the warm cardioplegia group ran throughout the literature, in particular the 'Warm Heart investigators' who conducted a randomized trial of 1732 patients, demonstrated a reduction in postoperative low output syndrome (6.1 versus 9.3%, P = 0.01) in the warm cardioplegia group, but no significant drop in 30-day all-cause mortality (1.4 versus 2.5%, P = 0.12). However, their later follow-up indicates non-fatal postoperative events predict reduced late survival, independent of cardioplegia. A minority of studies suggested a benefit of cold cardioplegia over warm in particular patient subgroups: One group conducted a retrospective study of 520 patients who required prolonged aortic cross-clamp times, results demonstrated less myocardial damage and reduced postoperative cardiac mortality and morbidity in the cold group. The clinical bottom line is that warm and cold cardioplegia result in similar short-term mortality. However, large studies have shown that warm cardioplegia reduces adverse post-operative events; the significance of which is unclear.