METHODS: One hundred fifty-three orthopaedic residents were recruited and randomly assigned to either the LAC or CAC. They were allocated 2 practice sessions, with 20 minutes each, to practice 4 given arthroscopic tasks: task 1, transferring objects; task 2, stacking objects; task 3, probing numbers; and task 4, stretching rubber bands. The time taken for participants to complete the given tasks was recorded in 3 separate tests; before practice, immediately after practice, and after a period of 3 months. A comparison of the time taken between both groups to complete the given tasks in each test was measured as the primary outcome.
RESULTS: Significant improvements in time completion were seen in the post-practice test for both groups in all given arthroscopic tasks, each with P < .001. However, there was no significant difference between the groups for task 1 (P = .743), task 2 (P = .940), task 3 (P = .932), task 4 (P = .929), and total (P = .944). The outcomes of the tests (before practice, after practice, and at 3 months) according to repeated measures analysis of variance did not differ significantly between the groups in task 1 (P = .475), task 2 (P = .558), task 3 (P = .850), task 4 (P = .965), and total (P = .865).
CONCLUSIONS: The LAC is equally as effective as the CAC in basic arthroscopic skills training with the advantage of being cost-effective.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In view of the scarcity in commercial arthroscopic devices for trainees, this low-cost device, which trainees can personally own and use, may provide a less expensive and easily available way for trainees to improve their arthroscopic skills. This might also cultivate more interest in arthroscopic surgery among junior surgeons.
METHODS: Patients who underwent ASCR between March 2015 and September 2020 with complete preoperative and postoperative 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were retrospectively analysed. Threshold values for MCID, substantial clinical benefit, and PASS were obtained from the previous literature for the PROMs. The time required to achieve clinically significant outcomes was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to evaluate the variables predictive of an earlier or delayed achievement of MCID.
RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients with a mean age of 64.5 ± 8.7 years old were included. The time of mean achievement of MCID, substantial clinical benefit, and PASS for VAS was 11.2 ± 0.9, 16.3 ± 1.1, and 16.6 ± 0.9 months, respectively. The time of mean achievement of MCID, substantial clinical benefit, and PASS for ASES was 13.2 ± 1.0, 16.8 ± 1.0, and 18.3 ± 0.9 months, respectively. The time of mean achievement of MCID, substantial clinical benefit, and PASS for the Constant score was 11.6 ± 0.9, 15.1 ± 1.0, and 14.7 ± 0.9 months, respectively. The time of mean achievement of MCID, substantial clinical benefit, and PASS for SANE was 14.4 ± 1.0, 16.1 ± 1.0, and 15.5 ± 0.8 months, respectively. Patients with a higher preoperative VAS score achieved an earlier MCID for VAS (P = 0.014). However, patients with a higher preoperative ASES and SANE scores achieved delayed MCID for ASES and SANE (P = 0.026, and P < 0.001, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Most patients achieved MCIDs around 1 year after arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction. A higher preoperative VAS score favours faster MCID achievement, while higher preoperative ASES and SANE scores contribute to delayed MCID achievement.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
METHODS: This was a prospective cross-sectional study. All subjects underwent a full ophthalmic examination, refraction, visual field analysis and A-scan biometry. Myopic patients were classified as low myopia (LM) [spherical equivalent (SE) from greater than -0.5 D, up to -3.0 D], moderate myopia (MM; SE greater than -3.0 D, up to -6.0 D) and high myopia (HM; SE greater than -6.0 D). The control group consisted of emmetropic (EM) patients (SE from +0.5 D to -0.5 D). A Zeiss Cirrus HD-OCT machine was used to measure the peripapillary RNFL thickness of both eyes of each subject. The mean peripapillary RNFL thickness between groups was compared using both analysis of variance and analysis of covariance.
RESULTS: A total of 403 eyes of 403 subjects were included in this study. The mean age was 31.48±10.23y. There were 180 (44.7%) eyes with EM, 124 (30.8%) with LM, 73 (18.1%) with MM and 26 (6.5%) with HM. All groups of myopia severity had a thinner average RNFL than the EM group, but after controlling for gender, age, and axial eye length, only the HM group differed significantly from the EM group (P=0.017). Likewise, the superior, inferior and nasal RNFL was thinner in all myopia groups compared to controls, but after controlling for confounders, only the inferior quadrant RNFL was significantly thinner in the HM group, when compared to the EM group (P=0.017).
CONCLUSION: The average and inferior quadrant RNFL is thinner in highly myopic eyes compared to emmetropic eyes. Refractive status must be taken into consideration when interpreting the OCT of myopic patients, as RNFL thickness varies with the degree of myopia.