Table 2 Arthroscopic studies using psychomotor analysis
From: Arthroscopic proficiency: methods in evaluating competency
Study | Design | Outcome | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
Gomoll et al. [5] | Trajectory patterns (shoulder) | Time to task completion; distance traveled by probe; speed ofprobe, number of probe collisions | Improved simulator performance with surgical experience forall parameters |
Howells et al. [37] | Trajectory patterns (shoulder) | Time to task completion; probe path length; number ofmovements | Increased surgical experience associated with improvedeconomy of movements |
Chami et al. [38] | Force/trajectory patterns (knee) | Torque magnitudes during arthroscopic tasks; time tocompletion, navigation paths | Improved efficiency and reduced force magnitudes withincreasing arthroscopic experience |
Tashiro et al. [32] | Force/trajectory patterns (knee) | Time to completion; instrument trajectory; surgical force | Simulator scoring and time to completion able to discriminatelevel of surgical skill and experience |
Tuijthof et al. [39] | Force (knee) | Absolute maximum probing force (AMPF) | Safe AMPF identified as < 8.5N, inherent differencesbetween novice and expert skill |
Alvand et al. [40] | Visual parameters/motion analysis | Prevalence of instrument loss, triangulation time, prevalenceof lookdowns | Simulator scoring able to discriminate between novice,resident and expert skill levels |