Study Focus: Simulation and Proficiency Based TrainingNCT01921621
Proficiency Based Training in Surgery - Employing An Arthroscopic Bankart Repair
A study testing Group B - Simulation Training and Group C - Proficiency Based Progression in people with Study Focus: Simulation and Proficiency Based Training, run by Arthroscopy Association of North America at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This study examines in a prospective, randomized and blinded study design the impact of a proficiency based training methodology on the acquisition of arthroscopic surgical skills employing both a dry shoulder simulator model, and cadaver specimens for the demonstration of surgical skill proficiency. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Study Focus: Simulation and Proficiency Based Training
- What is being tested?
- Group B - Simulation Training and Group C - Proficiency Based Progression
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 44 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Aug 2013to Feb 2014
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 4th and 5th year Orthopedic Residents
Who cannot join
- none
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Copernicus Initiative - The Study of Proficiency Based Training in Arthroscopic Surgery
This study examines in a prospective, randomized and blinded study design the impact of a proficiency based training methodology on the acquisition of arthroscopic surgical skills employing both a dry shoulder simulator model, and cadaver specimens for the demonstration of surgical skill proficiency.
Read the detailed description
Background: Simulation-based skills training has been proposed as a method of augmenting traditional in vivo training of surgeons.[1] Simulation based training is still in its infancy and there is considerable variability in the United States and around the world on how this type of training is configured.[2] The first successful simulation validation study used a proficiency-based progression methodology.[3] Trainees were required to demonstrate a performance benchmark (based on experienced surgeons performance on a simulator) before completing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy in vivo.[4] This approach has not been used in arthroscopy. In this study we propose to evaluate the utility of proficiency based skills training for learning how to perform an arthroscopic Bankart repair for unidirectional anterior shoulder instability.
Proficiency will be determined using metric based performance levels of surgeons very experienced in performing an arthroscopic Bankart procedure.[5] Metrics have previously been identified, operationally defined and agreed upon at an Arthroscopy Association of North America Delphi panel meeting and then validated. Metrics which have demonstrated construct validity will be used to define a performance benchmark/level of proficiency. Group C will be required to train on a simulator model until they demonstrate this predetermined performance level. At the completion of training all trainees are required to complete a Bankart procedure on a fresh cadaver shoulder specimen. Operative performance will be video recorded and subsequently assessed by two experienced arthroscopic surgeons blinded to subject identity and group. Raters will have been trained to reliably identify predefined procedural steps, errors and sentinel errors to an inter-rater reliability level of r >0.8. [6]
Hypothesis: It is hypothesized that proficiency based progression trainees will perform an arthroscopic Bankart procedure significantly better on a fresh cadaver shoulder than traditionally trained subjects. They will also perform significantly better than trainees who received the exact same curricular material,including the use of a simulator, but will be allowed to progress at their own desired pace with no requirement to demonstrate performance of skills to a proficiency benchmark before progressing in training.
Procedure: Three groups of orthopaedic surgical trainees in postgraduate years four and five will be provided online access to orientation videos demonstrating how to perform a standard arthroscopic Bankart repair. A set of baseline assessments of all 3 groups will be obtained prior to the beginning of training and include visuospatial,[7] perceptual,[8,9] and psychomotor evaluations[10-13] to ensure that the groups are comparable. The standard training group (Group A) will then progress with the training as they would today during a routine resident course. Groups B and C will be prospectively randomized (using an online randomizer) to their respective training conditions. Group C will study the online didactic information until they have demonstrated a predefined proficiency criterion. In addition, successful completion and proficiency demonstration with arthroscopic knot tying will be a requirement for them to proceed to the simulation based training models. The benchmark has been established using knots tied by an experienced group of arthroscopic surgeons. On the simulation models they will continue training until proficiency has been demonstrated. Group C trainees will be supervised and given formative feedback on their performance by an experienced trainer and assessor during these skills training sessions. Group B will complete the same curriculum as Group C with the exception that they will be free to progress through training at their own desired pace with no requirement to demonstrate proficiency in any phase of the training.
Outcome assessment On completion of the course proper all three groups of trainees will be required to complete a Bankart procedure on a fresh cadaver specimen. They will be assisted by an experienced orthopaedic surgeon blinded to the subjects training group and instructed to assist ONLY at the direction of the study participant. No guidance will be provided. Their performance will be video recorded for subsequent analysis. Video raters will be experienced orthopaedic surgeons who will be blinded as to subjects' identity and group. Objective assessment of their intra-operative performance will be measured using the pre-defined performance metrics agreed upon by the Arthroscopy Association of North America Delphi panel and previously demonstrated to show construct validity. These will include correct steps of the procedure completed, time to complete the procedure, intra-procedure errors and sentinel errors.
Power Calculations Based on data derived from the construct validity study on the shoulder model the following power calculation estimates were obtained for Steps completed correctly, Time to perform the procedure, Errors and Sentinel Errors made. Calculations are based on a group size of n = 16, and reference mean and standard deviation scores, an Alpha of 5% which corresponds to a 95% Confidence Interval and a two-tailed statistical test for significance.
In previous studies a transfer effectiveness ration (TER) of 26 - 42% has been shown for novices.[13] A TER of 20% means that the PBP trained group would complete 44.88 steps of the procedure in comparison to the control groups 37.4. The statistical power of this difference is 0.99. A similar magnitude of difference (i.e., 20%) for time and sentinel errors would result in a mean difference with a statistical power > 0.8. Error scores would require a difference between the mean scores of the group ~ 40% to reach an acceptable level of significance. Furthermore, all of these differences would mean that the PBP trainees were still not outperforming the experts.
Statistical Analysis
The following analyses will be conducted:
- The primary analysis will compare the intra-operative performance of trainees. For each subject, the number or intra-operative steps completed, time taken, errors and sentinel errors will be compared across the three groups with one factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and specific contrasts between groups will be conducted with Scheffe F-tests.
- Two-factor ANOVA for repeated measures where factor one is training method and factor two is the anchor number will be conducted on the variables listed. The sphericity assumption, relating to the conditional variances of all pair-wise differences will be evaluated.
Statistical comparisons for repeated measures for the placement of Anchors 1 - 3.
- Anchor Preparation and Insertion steps
- Anchor Preparation and Insertion Errors
- Suture Delivery and Management Steps
- Suture Delivery and Management Errors
- Knot Tying Steps
- Knot Tying Errors
Baseline Aptitude and Performance Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient and Multiple Regression Analysis will be used to assess the strength of the relationship between trainees' performance on individual and combined baseline assessments and objectively assessed performance on the Bankart procedure. The same type of analysis will be used to assess the strength of the relationship between knowledge at the start of the course and Bankart procedure performance.
- Being tested
- Group B - Simulation Training, Group C - Proficiency Based Progression
- Keywords
- proficiency based progression, surgical skill, metric validation, formative feedback, simulator model
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Group B - Simulation TrainingBehavioural
Group B resident training includes the use of a dry model shoulder simulator for practicing the steps and avoiding the errors of an arthroscopic Bankart repair
Group C - Proficiency Based ProgressionBehavioural
Group C - Proficiency Based Progression Group C residents must test to proficiency on the cognitive material contained in the orientation video, demonstrate arthroscopic knot tying proficiency to a pre-determined benchmark, and perform an arthroscopic Bankart repair on a dry shoulder simulator model to a pre-determined benchmark in order to progress in the training exercise
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group A | No intervention | Control: Group of Orthopedic Residents who receive arthroscopic surgery training at the Orthopedic Learning Center during a standard week-end Resident Arthroscopic Training Course |
| Group B - Simulation Training | Active comparator | Group B resident training includes the use of a dry model shoulder simulator for practicing the steps and avoiding the errors of an arthroscopic Bankart repair Receives: Behavioral: Group B - Simulation Training |
| Group C - Proficiency Based Progression | Experimental | Group C - Proficiency Based Progression Group C residents must test to proficiency on the cognitive material contained in the orientation video, demonstrate arthroscopic knot tying proficiency to a pre-determined benchmark, and perform an arthroscopic Bankart repair on a dry shoulder simulator model to a pre-determined benchmark in order to progress in the training exercise Receives: Behavioral: Group C - Proficiency Based Progression |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
score on a validated assessment tool using a videotaped performance of an arthroscopic Bankart repair
validated metrics for a reference arthroscopic Bankart repair include 45 steps and 77 potential errors of which 20 are "sentinel errors" (either the error could potentially lead to a significant compromise of the success of the procedure, or introduces significant iatrogenic damage).
Measured: 9 months
Secondary outcomes (1)
time to complete an arthroscopic Bankart repair on a cadaver specimen
videotape duration in minutes and seconds less the time period to create the Bankart lesion
Measured: 6 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Aug 2013 (estimated)
- Study startAug 2013
- Primary completionFeb 2014
- Study completionFeb 2014
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Study Focus: Simulation and Proficiency Based TrainingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 44 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Arthroscopy Association of North America
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Richard Angelo, M.D., Principal investigator, Arthroscopy Association of North AmericaRichard Ryu, M.D., Study chair, Arthroscopy Association of North AmericaRobert Pedowitz, M. D., PhD., Study chair, Arthroscopy Association of North AmericaAnthony G Gallagher, PhD., D.Sc, Study director, School of Medicine, University College Cork, Ireland.
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01921621
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- AANA Copernicus Bankart - 1
- Status last verified
- Mar 2014
- First submitted
- 7 Aug 2013
- Last updated
- 28 Mar 2014
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Angelo RL, Ryu RK, Pedowitz RA, Gallagher AG. The Bankart Performance Metrics Combined With a Cadaveric Shoulder Create a Precise and Accurate Assessment Tool for Measuring Surgeon Skill. Arthroscopy. 2015 Sep;31(9):1655-70. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.05.006. Epub 2015 Jul 31.
PubMed 26238730Angelo RL, Pedowitz RA, Ryu RK, Gallagher AG. The Bankart Performance Metrics Combined With a Shoulder Model Simulator Create a Precise and Accurate Training Tool for Measuring Surgeon Skill. Arthroscopy. 2015 Sep;31(9):1639-54. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.04.092. Epub 2015 Jun 27.
PubMed 26129726
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Mar 2014. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Copernicus Initiative - The Study of Proficiency Based Training in Arthroscopic Surgery
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01921621
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- AANA Copernicus Bankart - 1
- Keywords
- proficiency based progression, surgical skill, metric validation, formative feedback, simulator model
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 44 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Arthroscopy Association of North AmericaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Aug 2013
- Primary completion
- Feb 2014 (actual)
- Study completion
- Feb 2014 (actual)
- First posted
- 13 Aug 2013 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study examines in a prospective, randomized and blinded study design the impact of a proficiency based training methodology on the acquisition of arthroscopic surgical skills employing both a dry shoulder simulator model, and cadaver specimens for the demonstration of surgical skill proficiency.
Detailed description
Background: Simulation-based skills training has been proposed as a method of augmenting traditional in vivo training of surgeons.[1] Simulation based training is still in its infancy and there is considerable variability in the United States and around the world on how this type of training is configured.[2] The first successful simulation validation study used a proficiency-based progression methodology.[3] Trainees were required to demonstrate a performance benchmark (based on experienced surgeons performance on a simulator) before completing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy in vivo.[4] This approach has not been used in arthroscopy. In this study we propose to evaluate the utility of proficiency based skills training for learning how to perform an arthroscopic Bankart repair for unidirectional anterior shoulder instability.
Proficiency will be determined using metric based performance levels of surgeons very experienced in performing an arthroscopic Bankart procedure.[5] Metrics have previously been identified, operationally defined and agreed upon at an Arthroscopy Association of North America Delphi panel meeting and then validated. Metrics which have demonstrated construct validity will be used to define a performance benchmark/level of proficiency. Group C will be required to train on a simulator model until they demonstrate this predetermined performance level. At the completion of training all trainees are required to complete a Bankart procedure on a fresh cadaver shoulder specimen. Operative performance will be video recorded and subsequently assessed by two experienced arthroscopic surgeons blinded to subject identity and group. Raters will have been trained to reliably identify predefined procedural steps, errors and sentinel errors to an inter-rater reliability level of r >0.8. [6]
Hypothesis: It is hypothesized that proficiency based progression trainees will perform an arthroscopic Bankart procedure significantly better on a fresh cadaver shoulder than traditionally trained subjects. They will also perform significantly better than trainees who received the exact same curricular material,including the use of a simulator, but will be allowed to progress at their own desired pace with no requirement to demonstrate performance of skills to a proficiency benchmark before progressing in training.
Procedure: Three groups of orthopaedic surgical trainees in postgraduate years four and five will be provided online access to orientation videos demonstrating how to perform a standard arthroscopic Bankart repair. A set of baseline assessments of all 3 groups will be obtained prior to the beginning of training and include visuospatial,[7] perceptual,[8,9] and psychomotor evaluations[10-13] to ensure that the groups are comparable. The standard training group (Group A) will then progress with the training as they would today during a routine resident course. Groups B and C will be prospectively randomized (using an online randomizer) to their respective training conditions. Group C will study the online didactic information until they have demonstrated a predefined proficiency criterion. In addition, successful completion and proficiency demonstration with arthroscopic knot tying will be a requirement for them to proceed to the simulation based training models. The benchmark has been established using knots tied by an experienced group of arthroscopic surgeons. On the simulation models they will continue training until proficiency has been demonstrated. Group C trainees will be supervised and given formative feedback on their performance by an experienced trainer and assessor during these skills training sessions. Group B will complete the same curriculum as Group C with the exception that they will be free to progress through training at their own desired pace with no requirement to demonstrate proficiency in any phase of the training.
Outcome assessment On completion of the course proper all three groups of trainees will be required to complete a Bankart procedure on a fresh cadaver specimen. They will be assisted by an experienced orthopaedic surgeon blinded to the subjects training group and instructed to assist ONLY at the direction of the study participant. No guidance will be provided. Their performance will be video recorded for subsequent analysis. Video raters will be experienced orthopaedic surgeons who will be blinded as to subjects' identity and group. Objective assessment of their intra-operative performance will be measured using the pre-defined performance metrics agreed upon by the Arthroscopy Association of North America Delphi panel and previously demonstrated to show construct validity. These will include correct steps of the procedure completed, time to complete the procedure, intra-procedure errors and sentinel errors.
Power Calculations Based on data derived from the construct validity study on the shoulder model the following power calculation estimates were obtained for Steps completed correctly, Time to perform the procedure, Errors and Sentinel Errors made. Calculations are based on a group size of n = 16, and reference mean and standard deviation scores, an Alpha of 5% which corresponds to a 95% Confidence Interval and a two-tailed statistical test for significance.
In previous studies a transfer effectiveness ration (TER) of 26 - 42% has been shown for novices.[13] A TER of 20% means that the PBP trained group would complete 44.88 steps of the procedure in comparison to the control groups 37.4. The statistical power of this difference is 0.99. A similar magnitude of difference (i.e., 20%) for time and sentinel errors would result in a mean difference with a statistical power > 0.8. Error scores would require a difference between the mean scores of the group ~ 40% to reach an acceptable level of significance. Furthermore, all of these differences would mean that the PBP trainees were still not outperforming the experts.
Statistical Analysis
The following analyses will be conducted:
- The primary analysis will compare the intra-operative performance of trainees. For each subject, the number or intra-operative steps completed, time taken, errors and sentinel errors will be compared across the three groups with one factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and specific contrasts between groups will be conducted with Scheffe F-tests.
- Two-factor ANOVA for repeated measures where factor one is training method and factor two is the anchor number will be conducted on the variables listed. The sphericity assumption, relating to the conditional variances of all pair-wise differences will be evaluated.
Statistical comparisons for repeated measures for the placement of Anchors 1 - 3.
- Anchor Preparation and Insertion steps
- Anchor Preparation and Insertion Errors
- Suture Delivery and Management Steps
- Suture Delivery and Management Errors
- Knot Tying Steps
- Knot Tying Errors
Baseline Aptitude and Performance Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient and Multiple Regression Analysis will be used to assess the strength of the relationship between trainees' performance on individual and combined baseline assessments and objectively assessed performance on the Bankart procedure. The same type of analysis will be used to assess the strength of the relationship between knowledge at the start of the course and Bankart procedure performance.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group A | No intervention | –Control: Group of Orthopedic Residents who receive arthroscopic surgery training at the Orthopedic Learning Center during a standard week-end Resident Arthroscopic Training Course |
| Group B - Simulation Training | Active comparator | Behavioral: Group B - Simulation TrainingGroup B resident training includes the use of a dry model shoulder simulator for practicing the steps and avoiding the errors of an arthroscopic Bankart repair |
| Group C - Proficiency Based Progression | Experimental | Behavioral: Group C - Proficiency Based ProgressionGroup C - Proficiency Based Progression Group C residents must test to proficiency on the cognitive material contained in the orientation video, demonstrate arthroscopic knot tying proficiency to a pre-determined benchmark, and perform an arthroscopic Bankart repair on a dry shoulder simulator model to a pre-determined benchmark in order to progress in the training exercise |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- 4th and 5th year Orthopedic Residents
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- none
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Group B - Simulation TrainingGroup B resident training includes the use of a dry model shoulder simulator for practicing the steps and avoiding the errors of an arthroscopic Bankart repair | Behavioural | Group B - Simulation Training |
| Group C - Proficiency Based ProgressionGroup C - Proficiency Based Progression Group C residents must test to proficiency on the cognitive material contained in the orientation video, demonstrate arthroscopic knot tying proficiency to a pre-determined benchmark, and perform an arthroscopic Bankart repair on a dry shoulder simulator model to a pre-determined benchmark in order to progress in the training exercise | Behavioural | Group C - Proficiency Based Progression |
Primary outcome
score on a validated assessment tool using a videotaped performance of an arthroscopic Bankart repair
Time frame: 9 months
validated metrics for a reference arthroscopic Bankart repair include 45 steps and 77 potential errors of which 20 are "sentinel errors" (either the error could potentially lead to a significant compromise of the success of the procedure, or introduces significant iatrogenic damage).
1 secondary outcome
time to complete an arthroscopic Bankart repair on a cadaver specimen
Time frame: 6 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Mar 2014.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 26238730Angelo RL, Ryu RK, Pedowitz RA, Gallagher AG. The Bankart Performance Metrics Combined With a Cadaveric Shoulder Create a Precise and Accurate Assessment Tool for Measuring Surgeon Skill. Arthroscopy. 2015 Sep;31(9):1655-70. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.05.006. Epub 2015 Jul 31.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 26129726Angelo RL, Pedowitz RA, Ryu RK, Gallagher AG. The Bankart Performance Metrics Combined With a Shoulder Model Simulator Create a Precise and Accurate Training Tool for Measuring Surgeon Skill. Arthroscopy. 2015 Sep;31(9):1639-54. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.04.092. Epub 2015 Jun 27.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Richard Angelo, M.D. principal investigator
Arthroscopy Association of North America
Richard Ryu, M.D. study chair
Arthroscopy Association of North America
Robert Pedowitz, M. D., PhD. study chair
Arthroscopy Association of North America
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Group B - Simulation Training and Group C - Proficiency Based Progression in people with Study Focus: Simulation and Proficiency Based Training, run by Arthroscopy Association of North America at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Mar 2014. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
score on a validated assessment tool using a videotaped performance of an arthroscopic Bankart repair (time frame: 9 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01921621, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Mar 2014.