Assessing Surgical Task Load and Performance: A Comparison of Simulation and Maritime Operation

Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty Places a Disproportionate Burden on Surgeons: A Comparison Using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA TLX)

BACKGROUND

Perceived surgeon workload of performing primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is challenging to quantify. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA TLX) survey was developed to quantify experiences following aviation and has been applied to healthcare fields. Our purposes were to 1) quantify the workload endured by surgeons who are performing primary and revision TKA and THA and 2) compare these values to their Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of 5 fellowship-trained adult reconstruction surgeons completed NASA TLX surveys following primary and revision TKA/THA cases. A total of 122 surveys consisting of 70 TKA (48 primaries and 22 revisions) and 55 THA surveys (38 primaries and 17 revisions) were completed. Patient demographics and surgical variables were recorded. Final NASA TLX workloads were compared to 2021 CMS work relative value units.

RESULTS

Compared to primary TKA, revision TKA had 176% increased intraoperative workload (P < .001), 233% increased mental burden (P < .001), and 150% increased physical burden (P < .001). Compared to primary THA, revision THA had 106% increased intraoperative workload (P < .001), 96% increased mental burden (P < .001), and 91% increased physical burden (P < .001). Operative time was higher in revision versus primary TKA (118 versus 84.5 minutes, P = .05) and THA (150 versus 115 minutes, P = .001). Based upon 2021 CMS data, revision TKA and THA would need to be compensated by an additional 36% and 12.3%, respectively, to parallel intraoperative efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision hip and knee arthroplasty places a major mental and physical workload upon surgeons and is disproportionately compensated by CMS.

Navy En-Route Care in future Distributed Maritime Operations: A review of clinician capabilities and roles of care

OBJECTIVE

As the United States Navy transitions from Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom to preparing for a near-peer competition, an increasing focus of wartime strategy relies upon a network of distributed naval assets for total sea control, known as Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO). Historically, embedded medical personnel have provided care at sea in times of war. Recent reviews of shipboard and evacuated mass casualty incidents have alluded to weaknesses in the existing Navy Medicine approach that will require advances in care provision to sustain high-quality care that would benefit from industry and civilian academic collaboration. To gain input from civilian prehospital expertise and insight, the current DMO and Navy En-Route Care (ERC) systems must be plainly described for non-Navy military and civilian leaders, clinicians, and researchers to understand (1).

METHODS

N/AResults: In this review, we translate US Navy structure and vernacular into common civilian and non-Navy language, describe the maritime role-tiered ERC system, elucidate the medical assets on each naval warship, and discuss clinician levels and capabilities while deployed to help communicate the inherent challenges of US Navy maritime medical care during routine operations, casualty treatment, stabilization, and evacuation.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the roles of care, clinician levels, and medical assets within the Navy ERC system for researchers and military leaders who aim to mitigate the inherent challenges of future maritime trauma care in the age of Distributed Maritime Operations. This paper lays the framework for the Navy deployed medical system to enable research in maritime en-route care, and prompt inclusion of identified solutions into common use in the US Navy.