==== Front
Orthop J Sports MedOrthop J Sports MedOJSspojsOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine2325-9671SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA 10.1177/2325967118S0013010.1177_2325967118S00130ArticleEfficacy of an Arthroscopic Virtual Based Simulator for Orthopedic
Surgery Residents by Year in Training Yari Shahram MD1Jandhyala Chanakya MD1Sharareh Behnam MD1Athiviraham Aravind MD2Shybut Theodore B. MD11 Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX,
USA2 University of Chicago, Chicago, IL,
USA27 7 2018 7 2018 6 7 suppl4 2018 AOSSM Annual Meeting Abstracts2325967118S00130© The Author(s) 20182018SAGE PublicationsThis open-access article is published and distributed under the
Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which
permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article
in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may
not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of
the Author(s). For article reuse guidelines, please visit SAGE’s website at
http://www.sagepub.com/journals-permissions.Objectives:
Arthroscopic virtual-reality stimulators are an attractive option for
resident training and are increasing across training programs. However, no
study has analyzed the utility of the simulator for trainees based on their
post-graduate level of training (PGY-level). The primary aim of this study
was to determine the utility of the ArthroSTM arthroscopic
simulator for orthopedic trainees based on their level of training (to
determine at what point in training the simulator offers the most benefit
for trainees). We hypothesized that all levels would show similar
improvements in performance following completion of the training
modules.

Methods:
Eighteen orthopedic surgery residents performed pre-training diagnostic knee
and shoulder tasks on the ArthoSTM simulator. Subjects completed
a series of training modules, then repeated the diagnostic tasks. Mean
composite scores were calculated. Group differences for discrete variables
were evaluated using ANOVA (analysis of variance). Correlation coefficients
(R2) were calculated for improvements in mean composite score
as a function of subject year-in-training.

Results:
Average improvement in composite score for participants as a whole was 11.2
points [SD 10; p-value 0.0003] for the knee simulator and 14.9 points [SD
10.9; p-value 0.0352] for the shoulder simulator. When broken down by
PGY-level, all groups showed improvement, with greater improvements seen for
junior-level residents in the knee simulator and greater improvements seen
for senior-level residents in the shoulder simulator. ANOVA for the score
improvement variable in the knee simulator data amongst the different
PGY-groups yielded an f-value of 1.640 (p-value 0.2258) and that for the
shoulder simulator data amongst the different PGY-groups yielded an f-value
of 0.2292 (p-value 0.917). The correlation coefficient (r2) was
-0.866 for the knee score improvement and 0.887 for the shoulder score
improvement (Image 1).

Conclusion:
We found that residents training on a virtual arthroscopic simulator made
significant improvements in both knee and shoulder arthroscopic skills. Most
importantly, we report for the first time that the knee simulator appears to
be more beneficial for junior residents, while the shoulder simulator
appears to be more beneficial for senior residents. Our study adds to the
mounting evidence supporting virtual arthroscopic simulator-based training
for orthopedic surgery residents.





edited-statecorrected-proof