A Low-Cost, 3D-Printed Simulator for Basic Arthroscopic Skills: A Validation Study

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to validate our simulator using the comprehensive Messick validation framework. We hypothesized that the simulator will demonstrate strong validity evidence, particularly in internal structure, its ability to distinguish between experience levels, and in promoting measurable performance improvements over time.

Materials and Methods

A prospective, single-center validation study was conducted between January and April 2023. Fourteen orthopaedic surgery residents and attending surgeons participated, and they were divided into novice (n = 7) and expert (n = 7) groups. The participants performed five standardized arthroscopic tasks designed to develop visuospatial and manual dexterity skills. Performance was evaluated using a validated scoring system that combined the completion time and error rates. Messick's framework was applied to assess the validity across five domains: content, response processes, internal structure, relations with other variables, and consequences. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's α and interrater reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

Content validity was established through expert consensus. Standardized instructions and blinded video analysis ensured the validity of the response process. Internal consistency across exercises was high (α = 0.953; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.949–0.974), and interrater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.984–0.988). Experts achieved significantly higher baseline scores (median 316 vs. 244; p < 0.001), fewer errors (49 vs. 133; p < 0.001), and faster completion times (median 81 vs. 122 seconds; p < 0.001) than novices, supporting validity related to other variables. Performance improved significantly in both groups over repeated sessions (experts: median +30 points, IQR = 14.2–60.8; p < 0.001; novices: median +69 points, IQR = 45.2–152; p < 0.001), demonstrating the consequences of testing.

Conclusion

This low-cost 3D-printed arthroscopic simulator showed satisfactory evidence from multiple sources of validity, establishing it as an effective, reliable, and reproducible educational tool. Its affordability, portability, and ease of use and maintenance could make it a valuable resource for acquiring basic visuomotor skills in arthroscopy through continuous, repetitive, and structured practice in a safe and controlled environment.

Level of Evidence

Prospective comparative validation study, Level II.

Keywords

arthroscopy - surgical simulation - 3D-printing - validation study - surgical education

Contributors' Statement

All authors contributed to the study design, discussed the results, commented on the manuscript, and reviewed the final version.

Publication History

Received: 08 October 2025

Accepted: 24 December 2025

Article published online:
09 January 2026

• References

• 1 Shah NV, Solow M, Kelly JJ. et al. Demographics and rates of surgical arthroscopy and postoperative rehabilitative preferences of arthroscopists from the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA). J Orthop 2018; 15 (02) 591-595
• 2 Srivastava A, Gibson M, Patel A. Low-fidelity arthroscopic simulation training in trauma and orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review of experimental studies. Arthroscopy 2022; 38 (01) 190-199.e1
• 3 Milcent PAA, Kulcheski AL, Rosa FM, Dau L, Stieven Filho E. Construct validity and experience of using a low-cost arthroscopic knee surgery simulator. J Surg Educ 2021; 78 (01) 292-301
• 4 Ashraf H, Gunda D, Morgan FH. et al. Impact of work hour restrictions on the operative experience of general surgical residents: a systematic review. Surg Pract Sci 2023; 15 (100222): 100222
• 5 Jamal MH, Wong S, Whalen TV. Effects of the reduction of surgical residents' work hours and implications for surgical residency programs: a narrative review. BMC Med Educ 2014; 14 (Suppl 1, Suppl 1): S14
• 6 Ghaderi I, Manji F, Park YS. et al. Technical skills assessment toolbox: a review using the unitary framework of validity. Ann Surg 2015; 261 (02) 251-262
• 7 Olson JJ, Zhang B, Zhu D. et al. Do resident surgical volumes and level of training correlate with improved performance on psychomotor skills tasks: construct validity testing of an ASSH Training Platform (STEP)?. JBJS Open Access 2021; 6 (01) e20.00123
• 8 Coughlin RP, Pauyo T, Sutton III JC, Coughlin LP, Bergeron SG. A validated orthopaedic surgical simulation model for training and evaluation of basic arthroscopic skills. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (17) 1465-1471
• 9 Rashed S, Ahrens PM, Maruthainar N, Garlick N, Saeed MZ. The role of arthroscopic simulation in teaching surgical skills: a systematic review of the literature. JBJS Rev 2018; 6 (09) e8
• 10 Bouaicha S, Epprecht S, Jentzsch T, Ernstbrunner L, El Nashar R, Rahm S. Three days of training with a low-fidelity arthroscopy triangulation simulator box improves task performance in a virtual reality high-fidelity virtual knee arthroscopy simulator. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (03) 862-868
• 11 Ledermann G, Rodrigo A, Besa P, Irarrázaval S. Orthopaedic residents' transfer of knee arthroscopic abilities from the simulator to the operating room. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2020; 28 (05) 194-199
• 12 Martin KD, Patterson D, Phisitkul P, Cameron KL, Femino J, Amendola A. Ankle arthroscopy simulation improves basic skills, anatomic recognition, and proficiency during diagnostic examination of residents in training. Foot Ankle Int 2015; 36 (07) 827-835
• 13 Atesok K, Hurwitz S, Anderson DD. et al. Advancing simulation-based orthopaedic surgical skills training: an analysis of the challenges to implementation. Adv Orthop 2019; 2019: 2586034
• 14 Hughes T, Fennelly JT, Patel R, Baxter J. The validation of surgical simulators: a technical report on current validation terminology as a reference for future research. Cureus 2022; 14 (11) e31881
• 15 Colaco HB, Hughes K, Pearse E, Arnander M, Tennent D. Construct validity, assessment of the learning curve, and experience of using a low-cost arthroscopic surgical simulator. J Surg Educ 2017; 74 (01) 47-54
• 16 Lopez G, Martin DF, Wright R. et al. Construct validity for a cost-effective arthroscopic surgery simulator for resident education. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2016; 24 (12) 886-894
• 17 Sandberg RP, Sherman NC, Latt LD, Hardy JC. Cigar box arthroscopy: a randomized controlled trial validates nonanatomic simulation training of novice arthroscopy skills. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (11) 2015-2023.e3
• 18 Borgersen NJ, Naur TMH, Sørensen SMD. et al. Gathering validity evidence for surgical simulation: a systematic review. Ann Surg 2018; 267 (06) 1063-1068
• 19 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007; 370 (9596): 1453-1457
• 20 Mohtashami J, Salsali M, Pazargadi M. Developing and psychometric properties check list of clinical competency in mental health nursing students. IJPN 2014; 2 (03) 46-57
• 21 Swanwick T, Forrest K, O'Brien BC. Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory, and Practice. John Wiley & Sons; 2019. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=LDxxDwAAQBAJ
• 22 Peters JH, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL. et al; SAGES FLS Committee. Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 2004; 135 (01) 21-27
• 23 Derossis AM, Fried GM, Abrahamowicz M, Sigman HH, Barkun JS, Meakins JL. Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 1998; 175 (06) 482-487
• 24 Likert R. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology; 1932. https://books.google.at/books?id=9rotAAAAYAAJ
• 25 Messick S. Foundations of validity: meaning and consequences in psychological assessment. ETS Res Rep Ser 1993; 1993 (02) i-18
• 26 Downing SM. Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ 2003; 37 (09) 830-837