BACKGROUND: Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) is a revolutionary diagnostic procedure. There is currently no accepted method of assessing EBUS technical skill or competency. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to validate a computer EBUS simulator in differentiating between operators of varying clinical EBUS experience. METHODS: A convenience sample (n = 22) of bronchoscopists was separated into four cohorts based on previous bronchoscopy experience: group A = novice bronchoscopists, no EBUS experience (n = 4), group B = expert bronchoscopists, no EBUS experience (n = 5), group C = basic clinical EBUS training (n = 9), group D = EBUS experts (n = 4). After a standardized introduction session on the EBUS simulator, participants performed 2 simulated cases on an EBUS simulator with performance metrics measured by the simulator. RESULTS: Significant differences between groups were noted for total procedure time, percentage of lymph nodes identified and percentage of successful biopsies (p < 0.05, ANOVA). Group D performed significantly better than all other groups for total procedure time and percentage of lymph nodes identified (p < 0.05). Group C performed significantly better than groups A and B for total procedure time, percentage of lymph nodes identified and percentage of successful biopsies (p < 0.05, ANOVA). CONCLUSIONS: An EBUS simulator can accurately discriminate between operators with different levels of clinical EBUS experience. EBUS simulators show promise as a tool for assessing training and evaluating competency.
BACKGROUND: Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) is a revolutionary diagnostic procedure. There is currently no accepted method of assessing EBUS technical skill or competency. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to validate a computer EBUS simulator in differentiating between operators of varying clinical EBUS experience. METHODS: A convenience sample (n = 22) of bronchoscopists was separated into four cohorts based on previous bronchoscopy experience: group A = novice bronchoscopists, no EBUS experience (n = 4), group B = expert bronchoscopists, no EBUS experience (n = 5), group C = basic clinical EBUS training (n = 9), group D = EBUS experts (n = 4). After a standardized introduction session on the EBUS simulator, participants performed 2 simulated cases on an EBUS simulator with performance metrics measured by the simulator. RESULTS: Significant differences between groups were noted for total procedure time, percentage of lymph nodes identified and percentage of successful biopsies (p < 0.05, ANOVA). Group D performed significantly better than all other groups for total procedure time and percentage of lymph nodes identified (p < 0.05). Group C performed significantly better than groups A and B for total procedure time, percentage of lymph nodes identified and percentage of successful biopsies (p < 0.05, ANOVA). CONCLUSIONS: An EBUS simulator can accurately discriminate between operators with different levels of clinical EBUS experience. EBUS simulators show promise as a tool for assessing training and evaluating competency.
Authors: Christian Jenssen; Jouke Tabe Annema; Paul Clementsen; Xin-Wu Cui; Mathias Maximilian Borst; Christoph Frank Dietrich Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: David Ryan Stather; Alex Chee; Paul Maceachern; Elaine Dumoulin; Christopher A Hergott; Jacob Gelberg; Sandra D Scott; Sylvia De Guzman; Alain Tremblay Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: David Ryan Stather; Paul MacEachern; Alex Chee; Elaine Dumoulin; Christopher A Hergott; Alain Tremblay Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Alain Tremblay; Alex C Chee; Inderdeep Dhaliwal; Elaine Dumoulin; Ashley Gillson; Paul R MacEachern; Michael Mitchell; Colin Schieman; Daniel Stollery; Pen Li; Marc Fortin; Chung C Tyan; Erik Vakil; Christopher Hergott Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2021-01