A. R. J. Langeveld, C. M. E. Rustenburg, B. J. Burger, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, The Netherlands A. R. J. Langeveld, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, HagaZiekenhuis, The Hague, The Netherlands M. J. M. Hoozemans, Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioral and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands D. E. Meuffels, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands C. M. E. Rustenburg, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Jan;477(1):232-239. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000557.
Surgery has greatly benefited from various technologic advancements over the past decades. Surgery remains, however, mostly manual labor performed by well-trained surgeons. Little research has focused on improving osseous drilling techniques. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy and precision of different orthopaedic drilling techniques involving the use of both index fingers.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does the shooting grip technique and aiming at the contralateral index finger improve accuracy and precision in drilling? (2) Is the effect of drilling technique on accuracy and precision affected by the experience level of the performer?
This study included 36 participants from two Dutch training hospitals who were subdivided into three groups (N = 12 per group) based on their surgical experience (that is, no experience, residents, and surgeons). The participants had no further experience with drilling outside the hospital nor were there other potential confounding variables that could influence the test outcomes. Participants were instructed to drill toward a target exit point on a synthetic bone model. There were four conditions: (1) clenched grip without aiming; (2) shooting grip without aiming; (3) clenched grip with aiming at the contralateral index finger; and (4) shooting grip aiming at the contralateral index finger. Participants were only used to a clenched grip without aiming in clinical practice. Each participant had to drill five times per technique per test, and the test was repeated after 4 weeks. Accuracy was defined as the systematic error of all measurements and was calculated as the mean of the five distances between the five exit points and the target exit point, whereas precision was defined as the random error of all measurements and calculated as the SD of those five distances. Accuracy and precision were analyzed using mixed-design analyses of variance.
Accuracy was highest when using a clenched grip with aiming at the index finger (mean 4.0 mm, SD 1.1) compared with a clenched grip without aiming (mean 5.0 mm, SD 1.2, p = 0.004) and a shooting grip without aiming (mean 4.9 mm, SD 1.4, p = 0.015). The shooting grip with aiming at the index finger (mean 4.1 mm, SD 1.2) was also more accurate than a clenched grip without aiming (p = 0.006) and a shooting grip without aiming (p = 0.014). Shooting grip with aiming at the opposite index finger (median 2.0 mm, interquartile range [IQR] 1.2) showed the best precision and outperformed a clenched grip without aiming (median 2.9 mm, IQR 1.1, p = 0.016), but was not different than the shooting grip without aiming (median 2.2 mm, IQR 1.4) or the clenched grip with aiming (median 2.4 mm, IQR 1.3). The accuracy of surgeons (mean 4.1 mm, SD 1.1) was higher than the inexperienced group (mean 5.0 mm, SD 1.1, p = 0.012). The same applied for precision (median 2.2 mm, IQR 1.0 versus median 2.8 mm, IQR 1.4, p = 0.008).
A shooting grip combined with aiming toward the index finger of the opposite hand had better accuracy and precision compared with a clenched grip alone. Based on this study, experience does matter, because the orthopaedic surgeons outperformed the less experienced participants. Based on our study, we advise surgeons to aim at the index finger of the opposite hand when possible and to align the ipsilateral index finger to the drill bit.
Level II, therapeutic study.
在过去的几十年里,手术技术得到了极大的发展。然而,手术仍然主要是由训练有素的外科医生进行的手工操作。很少有研究关注于改进骨钻技术。本研究的目的是比较不同的骨科钻孔技术的准确性和精度,这些技术都涉及到使用双手食指。
问题/目的:(1)射击握法和瞄准对侧食指是否能提高钻孔的准确性和精度?(2)手术技术对准确性和精度的影响是否受执行者经验水平的影响?
本研究纳入了来自荷兰两家培训医院的 36 名参与者,他们根据手术经验(即无经验、住院医生和外科医生)分为三组(每组 12 名)。参与者在医院外没有进一步的钻孔经验,也没有其他可能影响测试结果的潜在混杂变量。参与者被指示向合成骨模型的目标出口点钻孔。共有四种条件:(1)紧握无瞄准;(2)射击无瞄准;(3)紧握瞄准对侧食指;(4)射击瞄准对侧食指。参与者在临床实践中仅习惯使用紧握无瞄准。每位参与者每技术需钻孔五次,重复试验 4 周后。准确性定义为所有测量的系统误差,计算为五个出口点与目标出口点之间的五个距离的平均值,而精度定义为所有测量的随机误差,计算为这五个距离的标准差。使用混合设计方差分析对准确性和精度进行分析。
使用对侧食指紧握并瞄准(平均 4.0 毫米,SD 1.1)比紧握无瞄准(平均 5.0 毫米,SD 1.2,p = 0.004)和无瞄准射击握法(平均 4.9 毫米,SD 1.4,p = 0.015)的准确性更高。用对侧食指瞄准的射击握法(平均 4.1 毫米,SD 1.2)也比紧握无瞄准(p = 0.006)和无瞄准射击握法(p = 0.014)更准确。用对侧食指瞄准的射击握法(中位数 2.0 毫米,四分位距 [IQR] 1.2)表现出最好的精度,优于紧握无瞄准(中位数 2.9 毫米,IQR 1.1,p = 0.016),但与无瞄准射击握法(中位数 2.2 毫米,IQR 1.4)或紧握瞄准(中位数 2.4 毫米,IQR 1.3)无差异。外科医生的准确性(平均 4.1 毫米,SD 1.1)高于无经验组(平均 5.0 毫米,SD 1.1,p = 0.012)。同样适用于精度(中位数 2.2 毫米,IQR 1.0 与中位数 2.8 毫米,IQR 1.4,p = 0.008)。
与单独紧握相比,使用对侧食指的射击握法结合瞄准具有更好的准确性和精度。基于这项研究,经验确实很重要,因为骨科医生的表现优于经验较少的参与者。基于我们的研究,我们建议外科医生在可能的情况下用对侧食指瞄准,并使同侧食指与钻头对齐。
II 级,治疗研究。