Literature DB >> 15729227

Training with the compactEASIE biologic endoscopy simulator significantly improves hemostatic technical skill of gastroenterology fellows: a randomized controlled comparison with clinical endoscopy training alone.

Juergen Hochberger, Kai Matthes, Juergen Maiss, Corinna Koebnick, Eckhart G Hahn, Jonathan Cohen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Erlangen Active Simulator for Interventional Endoscopy (EASIE) was introduced in 1997 for interventional endoscopy training. compactEASIE developed in 1998 is a modified, light-weight version of the original model. Objective evidence of the benefits of training with these models is limited. A randomized controlled study, therefore, was conducted to compare the effects of intensive 7-month, hands-on training in hemostatic techniques by using the compactEASIE model (in addition to clinical endoscopic training) vs. pure clinical training in endoscopic hemostatic methods.
METHODS: Thirty-seven fellows in gastroenterology in New York City area training programs were enrolled. Baseline skills were assessed on the simulator for the following techniques: manual skills, injection and electrocoagulation, hemoclip application, and variceal ligation. Twenty-eight fellows were then randomized into two comparable groups. Those randomized to Group A received purely clinical training in endoscopic hemostatic techniques at their hospitals. Those in Group B, in addition, were trained by experienced tutors in 3 full-day hemostasis workshops over 7 months. Both groups underwent a final evaluation on the compactEASIE simulator conducted by their tutors and additional evaluators who were blinded to the method of training. Initial and final evaluation scores were compared for each group and between groups. Outcomes of actual clinical hemostatic procedures performed during the study period also were analyzed.
RESULTS: Ten of 14 fellows randomized to Group A (standard training) and 13 of 14 in Group B (intensive training) returned for the final evaluation. For Group B, scores for all techniques were significantly improved. In Group A, a significant improvement was noted for variceal ligation alone.
CONCLUSIONS: compactEASIE simulator training (3 sessions over 7 months), together with clinical endoscopic training resulted in objective improvement in the performance by fellows of all 4 endoscopic hemostatic techniques, whereas significant improvement was noted for variceal ligation alone for fellows who had standard clinical training. In clinical practice, fellows who had intensive simulator/clinical training had a significantly higher success rate and a nonsignificant reduction in the frequency of occurrence of complications.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15729227     DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02471-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  23 in total

1.  Training gastroenterology fellows to perform gastric polypectomy using a novel ex vivo model.

Authors:  Ming-Jen Chen; Ching-Chung Lin; Chia-Yuan Liu; Chih-Jen Chen; Chen-Wang Chang; Ching-Wei Chang; Chien-Wei Lee; Shou-Chuan Shih; Horng-Yuan Wang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  Learning models for endoscopic ultrasonography in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  Gwang Ha Kim; Sung Jo Bang; Joo Ha Hwang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Canadian credentialing guidelines for esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

Authors:  Terry Ponich; Robert Enns; Joseph Romagnuolo; Jonathan Springer; David Armstrong; Alan N Barkun
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.522

4.  Use of the colonoscope training model with the colonoscope 3D imaging probe improved trainee colonoscopy performance: a pilot study.

Authors:  Tonya Kaltenbach; Cynthia Leung; Kuan Wu; Kelley Yan; Shai Friedland; Roy Soetikno
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): emerging trends and specifications for a virtual simulator.

Authors:  Steven D Schwaitzberg; Denis Dorozhkin; Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Kai Matthes; Daniel B Jones; Suvranu De
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Simulation training in endoscopy.

Authors:  Jonathan Cohen
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2008-01

Review 7.  Role of simulation in training the next generation of endoscopists.

Authors:  Simon C Blackburn; Stephen J Griffin
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-06-16

Review 8.  Patient outcomes in simulation-based medical education: a systematic review.

Authors:  Benjamin Zendejas; Ryan Brydges; Amy T Wang; David A Cook
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Creation of an effective and reproducible nonsurvival porcine model that simulates actively bleeding peptic ulcers.

Authors:  Victor K Chen; Jeffrey M Marks; Richard C K Wong; Michael F McGee; Ashley L Faulx; Gerard A Isenberg; Steven J Schomisc; Cheri X Deng; Jeffrey L Ponsky; Amitabh Chak
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2008-07-11       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  Face and content validation of a Virtual Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery Trainer (VTEST™).

Authors:  Denis Dorozhkin; Arun Nemani; Kurt Roberts; Woojin Ahn; Tansel Halic; Saurabh Dargar; Jinling Wang; Caroline G L Cao; Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Suvranu De
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.