Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Tibial plateau fractures often require surgery, where surgeon competence is critical. Competency-based medical education requires valid objective assessment. The purpose of this study was to develop an expert consensus-based, procedure-specific assessment tool to evaluate technical competence in buttress plate fixation of tibial plateau fractures.</p> Methods <p>International orthopaedic trauma educators participated in a four round online Delphi process to establish consensus on the content of the assessment tool. Round 1 identified potential parameters; Round 2 rated importance of each parameter; Round 3 addressed items outside this manuscript; Round 4 assigned weights (1–10).</p> Results <p>Eighty-seven surgeons from 42 countries participated. Of 31 parameters identified, five were excluded in Round 2, leaving 26. Parameter weights ranged from 6.8 to 9.6, with anatomical fracture reduction rated highest.</p> Conclusion <p>The resulting consensus-based assessment tool shows strong content validity and supports structured feedback for formative and summative use in surgical training.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Assessment of technical competence in anterolateral buttress plate fixation of tibial plateau fractures: a global Delphi consensus study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月10日

查看全文
  • Maj Ósk Bruun Stangegård,
  • Mads Emil Jacobsen,
  • Leizl Joy Nayahangan,
  • Monica Ghidinelli,
  • Chitra Subramaniam,
  • Kristoffer Borbjerg Hare,
  • Lars Konge,
  • Amandus Gustafsson

摘要

Purpose

Tibial plateau fractures often require surgery, where surgeon competence is critical. Competency-based medical education requires valid objective assessment. The purpose of this study was to develop an expert consensus-based, procedure-specific assessment tool to evaluate technical competence in buttress plate fixation of tibial plateau fractures.

Methods

International orthopaedic trauma educators participated in a four round online Delphi process to establish consensus on the content of the assessment tool. Round 1 identified potential parameters; Round 2 rated importance of each parameter; Round 3 addressed items outside this manuscript; Round 4 assigned weights (1–10).

Results

Eighty-seven surgeons from 42 countries participated. Of 31 parameters identified, five were excluded in Round 2, leaving 26. Parameter weights ranged from 6.8 to 9.6, with anatomical fracture reduction rated highest.

Conclusion

The resulting consensus-based assessment tool shows strong content validity and supports structured feedback for formative and summative use in surgical training.