Learning and optimizing arthroscopic knot-tying by surgery residents using procedural simulation.

Introduction: Procedural training of orthopedic surgery residents includes learning arthroscopic knot-tying. The models used comprise arthroscopy training modules of increasing complexity, although there is no procedural training guide for the acquisition of arthroscopic knot-tying skills. Few studies have focused on how residents learn arthroscopic knot-tying. The aim of our study was to determine the type of arthroscopic knot that is the easiest to perform and learn and that can be done the most successfully by orthopedic surgery residents.
Materials and Methods: Each participant had to learn five knots in a random order: Tennessee slider, Duncan loop, Revo knot (Surgeon's knot), Nicky knot, and the SMC (Samsung Medical Center) knot. The FAST Arthroscopy Workstation™ (Sawbones, Vashon Island, WA) was used for this study. Each participant could use a FAST Knot Tester™ (Sawbones®, Vashon Island, WA) to evaluate by themselves the biomechanical properties of the knots to optimize learning. Each participant had to rank how easy it was to learn this knot on a visual scale from 0 to 10. They also had to rank the reliability of the knots done on a visual scale from 0 to 10. Then, an independent rater assessed whether the knots were completed successfully; a knot was considered successful if it stretched by less than 3 mm when 60 N of load was applied.
Results: Ten participants were included in the study; 250 knots were done and evaluated. When ranked from simplest to most complicated, the easiest knot to learn was the Surgeon's knot, followed by the Duncan loop, Tennessee slider, Nicky knot and SMC knot (p<0.0001). The overall success rate for the knots was 80%. There was a statistical trend for the Nicky being done better than the other arthroscopic knots (88% success rate).
Conclusion: For orthopedics surgery residents, the surgeon's knot (Revo knot) was the easiest to learn, while the Nicky knot had the highest success rate.
Level of Evidence: II; prospective, randomized study with low power.
(Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)