Purpose
We developed 2 complementary low-fidelity models to be used to create the tool skills
needed to perform small joint arthroscopy. The purpose of the study was to establish
the face and construct validity of the 2 models.
Methods
The “foundation model” was constructed from lemon and radish sections, and the “advanced model” was constructed from a chicken knee. Using both models, novice, intermediate,
and experienced participants were asked to perform specific tasks and were timed and
scored on their performance. The experienced surgeons were given a 16-item survey
to rate how closely each model emulated reality to determine face validity.
Results
For the foundation model, the mean total time for the completion of tasks was 1,138
seconds for novices, 1,059 seconds for intermediates, and 631 seconds for experienced,
with significant differences between the groups for time to complete 2 of the tasks.
With a maximum possible score of 50 points for the correct performance of all tasks,
the mean total performance score was 23 for novices, 31.8 for intermediates, and 42.2
for experienced operators. For the advanced model, the mean total time for completion
was 266 seconds for novices, 147 seconds for intermediates, and 72 seconds for experienced
participants. With a maximum possible score of 31 points for the correct performance
of all tasks, the mean total performance score was 1.9 for novices, 15.0 for intermediates,
and 24.3 for experienced participants. The average scores for the face validity surveys
using a 5-point Likert scale were 4.2 and 4.5 of 5 possible points for the foundation
and advanced models, respectively.
Conclusions
Experienced operators completed the tasks more quickly and had higher performance
scores than the operators in other groups. This correlation between experience and
performance suggests that both models have construct validity. The face validity scores
were on the upper end of the scale, suggesting that both models emulate reality for
experienced operators.
Clinical relevance
These novel models provide low-cost, available and valid simulations conducive to
high-repetition training.
Key words
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Hand SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Ankle arthrodesis-open versus arthroscopic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2017; 8: S71-S77
- Comparison of arthroscopic and open treatment of septic arthritis of the wrist. Surgical technique.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92: 107-113
- Current innovations in wrist arthroscopy.J Hand Surg Am. 2012; 37: 1932-1941
- Ankle arthroscopy: an update.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017; 99: 1395-1407
- Variability of arthroscopy case volume in orthopaedic surgery residency.Arthroscopy. 2016; 32: 892-897
- Use of bovine carpal joints as a training model for cruciate ligament repair.ANZ J Surg. 2013; 83: 933-936
- How to build your simple and cost-effective arthroscopic skills simulator.Arthrosc Tech. 2016; 5: e1039-e1047
- A porcine knee model is valid for use in the evaluation of arthroscopic skills: a pilot study.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474: 965-970
- Training models for meniscal repairs and small joint arthroscopy.ANZ J Surg. 2015; 85: 649-651
- Establishing validity of a comprehensive hand Surgical Training and Educational Platform (STEP).J Hand Surg Am. 2020; 45: 1105-1114
- Validation of microsurgical models in microsurgery training and competence: a review.Microsurgery. 2007; 27: 494-499
- Validating a low-fidelity model for microsurgical anastomosis training.JB JS Open Access. 2021; 6e20.00148
Article info
Publication history
Published online: July 14, 2022
Accepted:
May 13,
2022
Received:
November 15,
2021
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofFootnotes
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. All rights reserved.
