Video-based coaching for surgical residents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Video-based coaching (VBC) is used to supplement current teaching methods in surgical education and may be useful in competency-based frameworks. Whether VBC can effectively improve surgical skill in surgical residents has yet to be fully elucidated. The objective of this study is to compare surgical residents receiving and not receiving VBC in terms of technical surgical skill. METHODS: The following databases were searched from database inception to October 2021: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed. Articles were included if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical residents receiving and not receiving VBC. The primary outcome, as defined prior to data collection, was change in objective measures of technical surgical skill following implementation of either VBC or control. A pairwise meta-analyses using inverse variance random effects was performed. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were used as the primary outcome measure to account for differences in objective surgical skill evaluation tools. RESULTS: From 2734 citations, 11 RCTs with 157 residents receiving VBC and 141 residents receiving standard surgical teaching without VBC were included. There was no significant difference in post-coaching scores on objective surgical skill evaluation tools between groups (SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.01, p = 0.05, I2 = 74%). The improvement in scores pre- and post-intervention was significantly greater in residents receiving VBC compared to those not receiving VBC (SMD 1.62, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.63, p = 0.002, I2 = 85%). These results were unchanged with leave-one-out sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis according to operative setting. CONCLUSION: VBC can improve objective surgical skills in surgical residents of various levels. The benefit may be most substantial for trainees with lower baseline levels of objective skill. Further studies are required to determine the impact of VBC on competency-based frameworks.

The Use of Rifampin in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Rifampin is an antibiotic with the ability to penetrate bacterial biofilms, and thus has been considered as a potentially important adjunct in the prevention and treatment of PJI. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate and summarize the use of rifampin in TJA, particularly in the context of PJI. METHODS: A literature search of all relevant electronic databases was performed. All comparative studies assessing the use of rifampin in the context of TJA were included. Descriptive data are reported, and a meta-analysis was performed using all studies which compared the addition of rifampin to standard care in treating PJI. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies met inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of 22 studies comparing the addition of rifampin to standard care for treating PJI found a significant reduction in failure rates (26.0% vs 35.9%; odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.86). The protective effect of rifampin was maintained in studies which included exchange arthroplasty as a treatment strategy, but not in studies only using an implant retention strategy. Among studies reporting adverse events of rifampin, there was a 20.5% adverse event rate. CONCLUSION: Overall, rifampin appears to confer a protective effect against treatment failure following PJI. This treatment effect is particularly pronounced in the context of exchange arthroplasty. Further high-level evidence is needed to clarify the exact indications and doses of rifampin which can most effectively act as an adjunct in the treatment of PJI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Level I-III Studies.

The Fragility of Statistically Significant Findings From Randomized Controlled Trials in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The Fragility Index (FI) is a method for evaluating the robustness of statistically significant findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) beyond the P value in trials with dichotomous outcomes. The FI is defined as the number of patients in one arm of a trial that would have to have a different outcome to change the results of the trial from statistically significant to nonsignificant. This review assessed the FI in arthroplasty RCTs. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science for RCTs related to primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) from 2010 to 2020. Trials with a statistically significant dichotomous primary outcome were included. The FI was calculated using Fisher's exact test to determine how many events would need to be reversed to change a study from statistically significant to nonsignificant. RESULTS: A total of 34 RCTs were included. The median sample size was 103 patients (range 24-791). The median FI was 1 (range 0-45), meaning that reversing the outcome of just one patient in either treatment group of each trial would change it from a significant to a nonsignificant result. CONCLUSION: Hip and knee arthroplasty RCTs with statistically significant dichotomous outcomes in TJA are fragile. The median FI in TJA is lower than the FI in any of the other previously reported orthopedic subspecialties. Fragility is another reason to be cautious when conducting or interpreting small trials, and to continue to strive toward large trials to answer important questions in TJA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.