MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974399900 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.19.00121

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cognitive Training for Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty

2019· article· en· W2974399900 on OpenAlexaff
Kartik Logishetty, Wade Gofton, Branavan Rudran, Paul E. Beaulé, Chinmay Gupte, Justin Cobb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArthroplastyTotal hip arthroplastyRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyCognitionLearning curveStandard errorPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical physicsSurgeryComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: For total hip arthroplasty (THA), cognitive training prior to performing real surgery may be an effective adjunct alongside simulation to shorten the learning curve. This study sought to create a cognitive training tool (CTT) to perform anterior approach (AA)-THA, which was validated by expert surgeons, and test its use as a training tool compared with conventional material. METHODS: We employed a modified Delphi method with 4 expert surgeons from 3 international centers of excellence. Surgeons were independently observed performing THA before undergoing semistructured cognitive task analysis (CTA) and before completing successive rounds of surveys until a consensus was reached. Thirty-six surgical residents (postgraduate year [PGY]-1 through PGY-4) were randomized to cognitive training or training with a standard operation manual with surgical videos before performing a simulated AA-THA. RESULTS: The consensus CTA defined THA in 11 phases, in which were embedded 46 basic steps, 36 decision points, and 42 critical errors and linked strategies. This CTA was mapped onto an open-access web-based CTT. Surgeons who prepared with the CTT performed a simulated THA 35% more quickly (time, mean 28 versus 38 minutes) with 69% fewer errors in instrument selection (mean 29 versus 49 instances), and required 92% fewer prompts (mean 13 versus 25 instances). They were more accurate in acetabular cup orientation (inclination error, mean 8° versus 10°; anteversion error, mean 14° versus 22°). CONCLUSIONS: This validated CTT for arthroplasty provides structure for competency-based learning. It is more effective at preparing orthopaedic trainees for a complex procedure than conventional materials, as well as for learning sequence, instrumentation utilization, and motor skills. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Cognitive training combines education on decision-making, knowledge, and technical skill. It is an inexpensive technique to teach surgeons to perform hip arthroplasty and is more effective than current preparation methods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207