nach oben

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

Erschienen in:

29.04.2021 | KNEE

The Diagnostic Arthroscopy Skill Score (DASS): a reliable and suitable assessment tool for arthroscopic skill training

verfasst von: Hermann Anetzberger, Roland Becker, Hansjörg Eickhoff, Franz Josef Seibert, Bernd Döring, Florian Haasters, Michael Mohr, Stephan Reppenhagen

Erschienen in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Ausgabe 1/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To develop and validate a novel score to more objectively assess the performance of diagnostic knee arthroscopy using a simulator.

Methods

A Diagnostic Arthroscopy Skill Score (DASS) was developed by ten AGA (AGA-Society for Arthroscopy and Joint-Surgery) instructors for the assessment of arthroscopic skills. DASS consists of two parts: the evaluation of standardized diagnostic knee arthroscopy (DASS_part1) and the evaluation of manual dexterity, including ambidexterity and triangulation, using objective measurement parameters (DASS_part2). Content validity was determined by the Delphi method. One hundred and eleven videos of diagnostic knee arthroscopies were recorded during simulator training courses and evaluated by six specially trained instructors using DASS. Construct validity, measurement error calculated by the minimum detectable change (MDC), internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha and interrater and intrarater reliability were assessed. The Bland–Altman method was used to calculate the intrarater agreement.

Results

Six skill domains were identified and evaluated for each knee compartment. DASS, DASS_part1, and DASS_part2 showed construct validity, with experts achieving significantly higher scores than competents and novices. MDC was 4.5 ± 1.7 points for DASS_part1. There was high internal consistency for all domains in each compartment from 0.78 to 0.86. The interrater reliability showed high agreement between the six raters (ICC = 0.94). The evaluation of intrarater reliability demonstrated good and excellent agreement for five raters (ICC > 0.80) and moderate agreement for one rater (ICC = 0.68). The Bland–Altman comparison showed no difference between the first and second evaluations in five out of six raters. Precision, estimated by the regression analysis and comparison with the method of Bland and Altman, was excellent for four raters and moderate for two raters.

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate good validity and reliability of DASS for the assessment of the surgical performance of diagnostic knee arthroscopy during simulator training. Standardized training is recommended before arthroscopy surgery is considered in patients.

Level of evidence

II.

Anetzberger H, Mohr M, Eickhoff HJ, Seibert FJ, Döring B, Reppenhagen S (2021) Drei Jahre AGA simulator training Arthroskopie. Ein Erfahrungsbericht. Arthroskopie. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00142-020-00428-5CrossRef

Bartlett JD, Lawrence JE, Stewart ME, Nakano N, Khanduja V (2018) Does virtual reality simulation have a role in training trauma and orthopaedic surgeons? Bone Jt J 100-B:559–565CrossRef

Bartlett JD, Lawrence JE, Yan M, Guevel B, Stewart ME, Audenaert E, Khanduja V (2020) The learning curves of a validated virtual reality hip arthroscopy simulator. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140:761–767CrossRef

Baumann Q, Hardy A, Courage O, Lacombes P, Accadbled F (2019) Lessons taught by a knee arthroscopy simulator about participants in a European arthroscopy training programme. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 105:287–291CrossRef

Bayona S, Akhtar K, Gupte C, Emery RJ, Dodds AL, Bello F (2014) Assessing performance in shoulder arthroscopy: The Imperial Global Arthroscopy Rating Scale (IGARS). J Bone Jt Surg Am 96:1–7CrossRef

Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRef

Bonett DG (2002) Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Stat Med 21:1331–1335CrossRef

Cychosz CC, Tofte JN, Johnson A, Gao Y, Phisitkul P (2018) Fundamentals of arthroscopic surgery training program improves knee arthroscopy simulator performance in arthroscopic trainees. Arthroscopy 34:1543–1549CrossRef

Dreyfus HL (1986) Five steps from novice to expert. In: Dreyfus HL, Dreyfus SE (eds) Mind over machine: the power of human intuition an expertise in the era of the computer. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp 16–51

10.

Elliott MJ, Caprise PA, Henning AE, Kurtz CA, Sekiya JK (2012) Diagnostic knee arthroscopy: a pilot study to evaluate surgical skills. Arthroscopy 28:218–224CrossRef

11.

Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH (1984) Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 74:979–983CrossRef

12.

Hohmann E, Brand JC, Rossi MJ, Lubowitz JH (2019) Proficiency-based training using simulator-based tools could be validated for certification of surgical procedural proficiency. Arthroscopy 35:3167–3170CrossRef

13.

Insel A, Carofino B, Leger R, Arciero R, Mazzocca AD (2009) The development of an objective model to assess arthroscopic performance. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91:2287–2295CrossRef

14.

Karam MD, Pedowitz RA, Natividad H, Murray J, Marsh JL (2013) Current and future use of surgical skills training laboratories in orthopaedic resident education: a national survey. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95:2e4CrossRef

15.

Koehler RJ, Amsdell S, Arendt EA, Bisson LJ, Braman JP, Butler A, Cosgarea AJ, Harner CD, Garrett WE, Olson T, Warme WJ, Nicandri GT (2013) The arthroscopic surgical skill evaluation tool (ASSET). Am J Sports Med 41:1229–1237CrossRef

16.

Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15:155–163CrossRef

17.

Luzzi A, Hellwinkel J, O’Connor M, Crutchfield C, Lynch TS (2020) The efficacy of arthroscopic simulation training on clinical ability: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2020.09.018CrossRefPubMed

18.

Middleton RM, Baldwin MJ, Akhtar K, Alvand A, Rees JL (2016) Which global rating scale? A comparison of the ASSET, BAKSSS, and IGARS for the assessment of simulated arthroscopic skills. J Bone Jt Surg Am 98:75–81CrossRef

19.

Moosbrugger H, Kelava A (2020) Qualitaetsanforderung an Test und Fragebogen („Guetekriterien“). In: Moosbrugger H, Kelava A (eds) Springer, Berlin, pp 13–28

20.

O’Neill PJ, Cosgarea AJ, Freedman JA, Queale WS, McFarland EG (2002) Arthroscopic proficiency: a survey of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship directors and orthopaedic surgery department chairs. Arthroscopy 18:795–800CrossRef

21.

Olson T, Koehler R, Butler A, Amsdell S, Nicandri G (2013) Is there a valid and reliable assessment of diagnostic knee arthroscopy skill? Clin Orthop Rel Res 471:1670–1676CrossRef

22.

Pedowitz RA (2019) Editorial commentary: inexpensive training tools can facilitate basic arthroscopy education. Arthroscopy 35:605–606CrossRef

23.

Preston CC, Colman AM (2000) Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 104:1–5

24.

Price AJ, Erturan G, Akhtar K, Judge A, Alvand A, Rees JL (2015) Evidence based surgical training in orthopaedics: how many arthroscopies of the knee are needed to achieve consultant level performance? Bone Jt J 97-B:1309–1315CrossRef

25.

Rahm S, Germann M, Hingsammer A, Wieser K, Gerber C (2016) Validation of a virtual reality-based simulator for shoulder arthroscopy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:1730–1737CrossRef

26.

Roberts PG, Guyver P, Baldwin M, Akhtar K, Alvand A, Price AJ, Rees JL (2017) Validation of the updated ArthroS simulator: face and construct validity of a passive haptic virtual reality simulator with novel performance metrics. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:616–625CrossRef

27.

Schmitt N (1996) Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychol Assess 8:350–353CrossRef

28.

Shantz SAS, Leiter JR, Collins JB, MacDonald PB (2013) Validation of a global assessment of arthroscopic skills in a cadaveric knee model. Arthroscopy 29:106–112CrossRef

29.

Stunt JJ, Kerkhoffs GM, van Dijk CN, Tuijthof GJ (2015) Validation of the ArthroS virtual reality simulator for arthroscopic skills. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:3436–3442CrossRef

30.

Tofte JN, Westerlind BO, Martin KD, Guetschow BL, Uribe-Echevarria B, Rungprai C, Phisitkul P (2017) Knee, shoulder, and fundamentals of arthroscopic surgery training: validation of a virtual arthroscopy simulator. Arthroscopy 33:641–646CrossRef

31.

Walbron P, Common H, Thomazeau H, Hosseini K, Peduzzi L, Bulaid Y, Sirveaux F (2020) Virtual reality simulator improves the acquisition of basic arthroscopy skills in first-year orthopedic surgery residents. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 106:717–724CrossRef

32.

Weir JP (2005) Quantifying test–retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19:231–240PubMed

33.

Williams PL, Webb C (1994) The Delphi technique: a methodological discussion. J Adv Nurs 19:180–186CrossRef

Titel: The Diagnostic Arthroscopy Skill Score (DASS): a reliable and suitable assessment tool for arthroscopic skill training
verfasst von: Hermann Anetzberger
Roland Becker
Hansjörg Eickhoff
Franz Josef Seibert
Bernd Döring
Florian Haasters
Michael Mohr
Stephan Reppenhagen
Publikationsdatum: 29.04.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Ausgabe 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06554-3

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

The Diagnostic Arthroscopy Skill Score (DASS): a reliable and suitable assessment tool for arthroscopic skill training