University of Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Buffalo, New York, U.S.A..
Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Arthroscopy. 2024 Jan;40(1):176-186. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.06.019. Epub 2023 Jun 23.
To systematically review the current literature on the effectiveness of hip arthroscopy simulation training and to determine the consistency of reporting and validation of simulation used in hip arthroscopy.
Three databases (PubMed, EMBase, and CINAHL) were screened using PRISMA guidelines in January 2022 for published literature on virtual simulation in hip arthroscopy. Studies reporting on the use of hip arthroscopy simulation training in orthopedic surgical trainees were included and assessed for quality and risk of bias using MINORS criteria. The number of participants, participant education level, experience, simulator type, validation type, method of assessment, and simulation outcomes were extracted from included studies.
Of the 286 articles screened, 11 met inclusion criteria for review evaluating 323 orthopedic trainees with a mean of 29.36 participants per study published between 2012 and 2021, most commonly in the United Kingdom (55%). The four most reported surgical skills evaluated were visualization and probing tasks (82%), mean time to perform the task (73%), number of cartilage and soft tissue collisions (73%), and number of hand movements (73%). The most described measurement instruments included a simulation built-in scoring system (55%), Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET) Global Rating Scale (GRS) (27%), and motion analysis system (18%). Construct validity was the most reported overall type of validity (82%), followed by face validity (36%), transfer validity (18%) and content validity (18%). Construct validity was also the most reported validity for the simulator and measurement instrument (55% and 89%, respectively).
There is significant variation in reported learning outcomes and measurement instruments for evaluating the effectiveness of hip arthroscopic-based education. This study highlights that simulation training may be an effective tool for evaluation of hip arthroscopy skills.
Level III, systematic review of level I to III studies.
系统回顾当前关于髋关节镜模拟训练效果的文献，并确定髋关节镜模拟训练中报告和验证的一致性。
2022 年 1 月，根据 PRISMA 指南，对三个数据库（PubMed、EMBase 和 CINAHL）进行了筛选，以获取髋关节镜虚拟模拟方面的已发表文献。纳入了报告髋关节镜模拟训练在骨科手术培训师中应用的研究，并使用 MINORS 标准评估其质量和偏倚风险。从纳入的研究中提取参与者数量、参与者教育水平、经验、模拟器类型、验证类型、评估方法和模拟结果。
在筛选的 286 篇文章中，有 11 篇符合综述标准，共评估了 323 名骨科培训师，每项研究的平均参与者为 29.36 人，研究发表时间为 2012 年至 2021 年，主要来自英国（55%）。评估报告的四项最常见的手术技能包括可视化和探查任务（82%）、完成任务的平均时间（73%）、软骨和软组织碰撞次数（73%）和手部运动次数（73%）。描述最多的测量仪器包括模拟内置评分系统（55%）、关节镜手术技能评估工具（ASSET）整体评分量表（GRS）（27%）和运动分析系统（18%）。总体而言，结构有效性是报告最多的有效性类型（82%），其次是表面有效性（36%）、转移有效性（18%）和内容有效性（18%）。结构有效性也是报告最多的模拟器和测量仪器的有效性（55%和 89%）。
报告的学习成果和评估髋关节镜相关教育效果的测量仪器存在显著差异。本研究强调了模拟训练可能是评估髋关节镜技能的有效工具。
三级，对 I 级至 III 级研究的系统评价。
