RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality arthroscopic simulators are an attractive option for resident training and are increasingly used across training programs. However, no study has analyzed the utility of simulators for trainees based on their level of training/postgraduate year (PGY). PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The primary aim of this study was to determine the utility of the ArthroS arthroscopic simulator for orthopaedic trainees based on their level of training. We hypothesized that residents at all levels would show similar improvements in performance after completion of the training modules. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: Eighteen orthopaedic surgery residents performed diagnostic knee and shoulder tasks on the ArthroS simulator. Participants completed a series of training modules and then repeated the diagnostic tasks. Correlation coefficients (r 2) were calculated for improvements in the mean composite score (based on the Imperial Global Arthroscopy Rating Scale [IGARS]) as a function of PGY. RESULTS: The mean improvement in the composite score for participants as a whole was 11.2 ± 10.0 points (P = .0003) for the knee simulator and 14.9 ± 10.9 points (P = .0352) for the shoulder simulator. When broken down by PGY, 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. Analysis of variance for the score improvement variable among the different PGY groups yielded an f value of 1.640 (P = .2258) for the knee simulator data and an f value of 0.2292 (P = .917) for the shoulder simulator data. The correlation coefficient (r 2) was -0.866 for the knee score improvement and 0.887 for the shoulder score improvement. CONCLUSION: Residents training on a virtual arthroscopic simulator made significant improvements in both knee and shoulder arthroscopic surgery skills. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current study adds to mounting evidence supporting virtual arthroscopic simulator-based training for orthopaedic residents. Most significantly, this study also provides a baseline for evidence-based targeted use of arthroscopic simulators based on resident training level.
RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Markov model analysis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the 7-year cost-effectiveness of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical disc replacement (CDR) for the treatment of cervical disc degeneration. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Both ACDF and CDR are acceptable surgical options for the treatment of symptomatic cervical disc degeneration. Past studies have demonstrated at least equal effectiveness of CDR when compared with ACDF in large randomized Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) studies. Short-term cost-effectiveness analyses at 5 years have suggested that CDR may be the preferred treatment option. However, adjacent segment disease and other postoperative complications may occur after 5 years following surgery. METHODS: A Markov model analysis was used to evaluate data from the LDR Mobi-C IDE study, incorporating five Markov transition states and seven cycles with each cycle set to a length of 1 year. Transition state probabilities were determined from complication rates, as well as index and adjacent segment reoperation rates from the IDE study. Raw SF-12 data were converted to health state utility values using the SF-6D algorithm for 174 CDR patients and 79 ACDF patients. RESULTS: Assuming an ideal operative candidate who is 40-years-old and failed appropriate conservative care, the 7-year cost was $103,924 for ACDF and $105,637 for CDR. CDR resulted in the generation of 5.33 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), while ACDF generated 5.16 QALYs. Both ACDF and CDR were cost-effective, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $10,076/QALY in favor of CDR, which was less than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: ACDF and CDR are both cost-effective strategies for the treatment of cervical disc degeneration. However, CDR is the more cost-effective procedure at 7 years following surgery. Further long-term studies are needed to validate the findings of this model. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
