The FAST Workstation Shows Construct Validity and Participant Endorsement

Resident Performance on the Fundamentals of Arthroscopic Surgery Training (FAST) Workstation Does Not Predictably Improve With Postgraduate Year

Purpose

To identify differences in performance on the Fundamentals of Arthroscopic Surgery Training (FAST) workstation between residents across different postgraduate years and training sites.

Methods

During the 2018-2019 academic year, 102 orthopaedic surgery residents from 4 training sites completed 6 FAST modules. Failure was defined as either completion time exceeding benchmark time or commission of task-specific errors. With the exception of knot tying, each module was completed by participants twice-once with each hand serving as the camera hand. Time to completion (except for knot tying) and errors were recorded for each of the modules. Completion times and failure rates were compared between postgraduate years, seniority groups, and training sites.

Results

In all modules for which time was recorded, except for the suture-passage module, there was no significant difference in time to completion based on seniority (P < .01 for suture passage and P > .05 for all others). Significant differences in completion time were observed between sites for all modules except for the suture-passage module (P = .957 for suture passage and P < .05 for all others). Site predicted failure by at least 1 measure (time or technical error) for all modules (P < .05) except for number probing and suture passage. Failure rate across training years varied for each module.

Conclusions

Time to completion and rate of failure did not predictably decrease with level of training. Training site proved to be a significant predictor of performance. Factors such as hand dominance and familiarity with the equipment proved to be important considerations for some modules.

Clinical Relevance

Objective assessment of arthroscopic skills among orthopaedic trainees is difficult. Using reproducible methodology to assess trainees on specific skills at all postgraduate years and at multiple training sites may provide important information about orthopaedic training.

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.