BACKGROUND AND AIM: The endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) mechanical simulator (EMS) and computer simulator (ECS) are described herein. No direct hands-on comparison has been reported to reflect the perception of trainers and trainees regarding the efficacy of each model for trainee ERCP education. We compared the trainers' and trainees' assessments of the EMS and ECS for trainee education. METHODS: Eighteen gastrointestinal trainees and 16 trainers with varying ERCP experience completed a questionnaire survey before and after practice with each simulator at hands-on ERCP practice workshops. They carried out scope insertion, selective bile duct cannulation, guidewire negotiation of a bile duct stricture, biliary papillotomy and insertion of a single biliary stent using both simulators. Main outcome measurement was respondents' assessments of comparative efficacy of EMS and ECS practice for trainee education. RESULTS: Compared to pre-practice evaluation, both EMS and ECS received higher scores after hands-on practice. Both trainers and trainees showed significantly greater increases in scores for EMS when compared with ECS in facilitating understanding of ERCP procedure, enhancing confidence in carrying out ERCP and the simulator as a credible option for supplementing clinical ERCP training (P < 0.05). Participants also scored EMS significantly higher in realism and usefulness as an instructional tool. CONCLUSIONS: Both computer and mechanical simulators are accepted modalities for ERCP training. The current data (based on a head-to-head comparison of hands-on practice experience) indicate EMS practice is rated higher than ECS practice in supplementing clinical ERCP training. EMS offers the additional advantage of coordinated practice with real equipment and accessories.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) mechanical simulator (EMS) and computer simulator (ECS) are described herein. No direct hands-on comparison has been reported to reflect the perception of trainers and trainees regarding the efficacy of each model for trainee ERCP education. We compared the trainers' and trainees' assessments of the EMS and ECS for trainee education. METHODS: Eighteen gastrointestinal trainees and 16 trainers with varying ERCP experience completed a questionnaire survey before and after practice with each simulator at hands-on ERCP practice workshops. They carried out scope insertion, selective bile duct cannulation, guidewire negotiation of a bile duct stricture, biliary papillotomy and insertion of a single biliary stent using both simulators. Main outcome measurement was respondents' assessments of comparative efficacy of EMS and ECS practice for trainee education. RESULTS: Compared to pre-practice evaluation, both EMS and ECS received higher scores after hands-on practice. Both trainers and trainees showed significantly greater increases in scores for EMS when compared with ECS in facilitating understanding of ERCP procedure, enhancing confidence in carrying out ERCP and the simulator as a credible option for supplementing clinical ERCP training (P < 0.05). Participants also scored EMS significantly higher in realism and usefulness as an instructional tool. CONCLUSIONS: Both computer and mechanical simulators are accepted modalities for ERCP training. The current data (based on a head-to-head comparison of hands-on practice experience) indicate EMS practice is rated higher than ECS practice in supplementing clinical ERCP training. EMS offers the additional advantage of coordinated practice with real equipment and accessories.