Development of proficiency benchmarks for basic arthroscopic skills in orthopedic training, indicating effective simulation use.
BACKGROUND Surgical education has shifted from the traditional Halsteadian apprenticeship model toward incorporating simulation due to work hour restrictions, increasing case complexity, and economic and liability pressures. Building on the success of the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery in general surgery, the Fundamentals of Arthroscopic Surgery Training (FAST) program was developed to establish proficiency benchmarks for orthopedic trainees in basic arthroscopic skills. OBJECTIVE Establish benchmarks for five Fundamentals of Arthroscopy Surgery Training (FAST) workstation modules. METHODS Sports medicine fellowship trained faculty were given instructions on the modules, two minutes of practice time, and then performed each task three times with both their dominant and nondominant hand. For each module, mean faculty performance was used to establish an efficiency benchmark (time) and precision benchmark (errors). RESULTS The Probing module should be completed in less than 95 seconds with no errors. The Ring Transfer module should be completed in less than 134 seconds with no more than 1 error. The Maze module should be completed in less than 99 seconds with no errors. The Meniscectomy module should be completed in less than 68 seconds with no more than 1 error. Lastly, the Suture Passing module should be completed in less than 195 seconds with no more than 1 error. CONCLUSIONS The FAST workstation can be utilized as a proficiency-based learning tool for residents to safely and effectively develop arthroscopic skills outside of the OR. These benchmarks were established via a method previously validated in surgical simulation and balance precision and efficiency for skills that are felt to be generalizable and transferable to arthroscopic surgeries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Caraet et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: