Both high-fidelity and low-fidelity simulation trainings were effective in arthroscopic skill acquisition. High-fidelity virtual reality simulation was superior to bench-top simulation in the acquisition of arthroscopic skills, both in the laboratory and in vivo. Further clinical investigation is needed to interpret the importance of these results.

For surgically naïve subjects, part-task training with PT alone was associated with slight improvements in the learning curve for ICS. However, overtraining with PT did not improve skill retention, and peg training alone was not an efficient strategy for learning ICS.

No abstract

Background Work-hour restrictions and fatigue management strategies in surgical training programs continue to evolve in an effort to improve the learning environment and promote safer patient care. In response, training programs must reevaluate how various teaching modalities such as simulation can augment the development of surgical competence in trainees. For surgical simulators to be most useful, it is important to determine whether surgical proficiency can be reliably differentiated using them. To our knowledge, performance on both virtual and benchtop arthroscopy simulators has not been concurrently assessed in the same subjects. Questions/purposes (1) Do global rating scales and procedure time differentiate arthroscopic expertise in virtual and benchtop knee models? (2) Can commercially available built-in motion analysis metrics differentiate arthroscopic expertise? (3) How well are performance measures on virtual and benchtop simulators correlated? (4) Are these metrics sensitive enough to differentiate by year of training? Methods A cross-sectional study of 19 subjects (four medical students, 12 residents, and three staff) were recruited and divided into 11 novice arthroscopists (student to Postgraduate Year [PGY] 3) and eight proficient arthroscopists (PGY 4 to staff) who completed a diagnostic arthroscopy and loose-body retrieval in both virtual and benchtop knee models. Global rating scales (GRS), procedure times, and motion analysis metrics were used to evaluate performance. CI, seconds, p = 0.002). The built-in motion analysis metrics also distinguished novices from proficient arthroscopists using the self-generated virtual loose body retrieval task scores (4 ± 1 [95% CI, 3-5] versus 6 ± 1 [95% CI, 5-7], p = 0.001). GRS scores between virtual and benchtop models were very strongly correlated (q = 0.93, p \ 0.001). There was strong correlation between year of training and virtual GRS (q = 0.8, p \ 0.001) and benchtop GRS (q = 0.87, p \ 0.001) scores. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate performance on both virtual and benchtop knee simulators. We have shown that subjective GRS scores and objective motion analysis metrics and procedure time are valid measures to distinguish arthroscopic skill on both virtual and benchtop modalities. Performance on both modalities is well correlated. We believe that training on artificial models allows acquisition of skills in a safe environment. Future work should compare different modalities in the efficiency of skill acquisition, retention, and transferability to the operating room.123 Clin Orthop Relat Res (2016) 474:956-964 DOI 10.1007/s11999-015-4510-8 Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® A Publication of The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® GRS scales. The proficient subjects completed nearly all tasks faster

No abstract

Nonunion is a relatively rare, yet challenging problem after fracture of the femoral neck. Risk factors include verticality of the fracture line and presence of comminution of the posteromedial calcar, as well as quality of reduction. Treatment options consist of valgus intertrochanteric osteotomy versus arthroplasty. Treatment should be tailored to the individual patient, taking into account patient age and activity demands. This review outlines the principles and technical considerations for valgus osteotomy of the proximal femur in the setting of femoral neck nonunion.

No abstract

Objective: To examine differences in surgical practices between salaried and fee-for-service (FFS) surgeons for two common degenerative spine conditions. Surgeons may offer different treatments for similar conditions on the basis of their compensation mechanism. Methods: The study assessed the practices of 63 spine surgeons across eight Canadian provinces (39 FFS surgeons and 24 salaried) who performed surgery for two lumbar conditions: stable spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. The study included a multicenter, ambispective review of consecutive spine surgery patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network registry between October 2012 and July 2018. The primary outcome was the difference in type of procedures performed between the two groups. Secondary study variables included surgical characteristics, baseline patient factors, and patient-reported outcome. Results: For stable spinal stenosis (n = 2234), salaried surgeons performed statistically fewer uninstrumented fusion (p < 0.05) than FFS surgeons. For degenerative spondylolisthesis (n = 1292), salaried surgeons performed significantly more instrumentation plus interbody fusions (p < 0.05). There were no statistical differences in patient-reported outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions: Surgeon compensation was associated with different approaches to stable lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Salaried surgeons chose a more conservative approach to spinal stenosis and a more aggressive approach to degenerative spondylolisthesis, which highlights that remuneration is likely a minor determinant in the differences in practice of spinal surgery in Canada. Further research is needed to further elucidate which variables, other than patient demographics and financial incentives, influence surgical decision-making.