Module-Based Arthroscopic Knee Simulator Training Improves Technical Skills in Naive Learners: A Randomized Trial

The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives

The remarkable progress in data aggregation and deep learning algorithms has positioned artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to revolutionize the field of medicine. AI is becoming more and more prevalent in the healthcare sector, and its impact on orthopedic surgery is already evident in several fields. This review aims to examine the literature that explores the comprehensive clinical relevance of AI-based tools utilized before, during, and after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The review focuses on current clinical applications and future prospects in preoperative management, encompassing risk prediction and diagnostics; intraoperative tools, specifically navigation, identifying complex anatomic landmarks during surgery; and postoperative applications in terms of postoperative care and rehabilitation. Additionally, AI tools in educational and training settings are presented. Orthopedic surgeons are showing a growing interest in AI, as evidenced by the applications discussed in this review, particularly those related to ACL injury. The exponential increase in studies on AI tools applicable to the management of ACL tears promises a significant future impact in its clinical application, with growing attention from orthopedic surgeons.

Virtual Reality and Surgical Simulation Training for Orthopaedic Surgery Residents: A Qualitative Assessment of Trainee Perspectives

Background

The demonstrated benefits of virtual reality (VR) in orthopaedic surgical training are numerous. However, it is relatively unknown how best to implement VR into an already established orthopaedic resident education curriculum and how trainees will engage and use these technologies longitudinally.

Methods

This was an exploratory, qualitative research study performed in accordance with Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. Orthopaedic surgery residents at a single institution were recruited during the 2022 to 2023 academic year. Semistructured interviews were conducted. Data were analyzed through grounded theory methodology, beginning with open coding, followed by axial coding, and concluding with selective coding that describes orthopaedic surgery residents' current perceptions of VR as a training tool.

Results

Six residents participated in interviews before thematic saturation was achieved. Average interview length was 13:27 (±2:59) minutes. Residents felt that currently, VR is most useful for interns and junior residents as an educational adjunct for learning anatomy, surgical exposures, and the steps of a procedure in a risk- and judgment-free arena. There seems to be a "ceiling effect" with VR given current technological limitations, and residents remarked that there is an associated "opportunity cost" with using VR technology. Some residents may find it more time-efficient to study texts, videos, or surgical guides rather than use VR. Cost (limited number of headsets) and technological barriers (i.e., hardware, software, and Wi-Fi issues) were some of the described barriers to VR utilization. Residents felt that there needs to be dedicated technological support to help with these issues. At this time, given these limitations of VR, many preferred VR as an optional educational adjunct rather than as a required curricular tool or assessment of surgical competency.

Conclusions

There is current utility for VR in orthopaedic surgical training. Future technological advances may make VR more central to resident education. This study describes resident perceptions about the technology and best use practices for the technology.

Level of Evidence

Qualitative Study, Level V Evidence.

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.

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.

Surgical simulation training should become a mandatory part of orthopaedic education

Purpose

Ethical concerns and increasing economic constraints of hospitals have caused a reduction in proper training and education. It has been hypothesized that due to the lack of a one-to-one apprenticeship throughout the residency, surgical simulation training is essential.

Methods

Between June 2020 and June 2021, residents from teaching hospitals in Switzerland, France, Germany, and Luxembourg were surveyed to learn about their experience with and thoughts on surgical simulation training. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Of the 596 residents surveyed, 557 residents (51% female, 49% male) from Switzerland (270), France (214), Germany (52) and Luxembourg (21) agreed to anonymous data analysis. Among those giving consent, 100% considered that simulation training was important for their practical education and 84% thought that simulation training should become a mandatory part of their curriculum, with an average estimated training time of 42 ± 51 h per year, based on the survey.

Conclusions

This study suggests that surgical simulation training is well accepted and even demanded among surgical residents as an alternative training solution able to address some of the limitations and challenges of the current one-to-one apprenticeship model. There is a wide variation among the residents regarding the number of training hours required, underscoring the need for structured performance-based simulator training.