BACKGROUND:Linear endobronchial ultrasound with transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a revolutionary bronchoscopic procedure that is challenging to learn. OBJECTIVES: To compare two methods used to teach EBUS-TBNA: wet laboratory (lab) versus computer EBUS-TBNA simulation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized study of respirologists, thoracic surgeons and trainees learning EBUS-TBNA at a two-day continuing medical education course. All subjects received education via a series of lectures and live cases, followed by randomization to learn EBUS-TBNA predominantly either by wet lab simulation (n=6) or computer simulation (n=6). All subjects then completed testing of their EBUS-TBNA skills via a previously validated method using simulated cases on EBUS-TBNA simulators and questionnaires evaluating learner preferences. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the computer EBUS-TBNA simulator group and the wet lab group in procedure time (25.3±6.1 min versus 25.2±2.5 min; P=0.984) and percentage of successful biopsies (81.3±14.9% versus 74.0±17.3%; P=0.453). The computer simulator group performed significantly better than the wet lab group in the percentage of lymph nodes correctly identified (70.4±16.7% versus 42.9±19.9%; P=0.002). Wet lab simulation was associated with increased learner confidence with operating the real EBUS-TBNA bronchoscope. All subjects responded that wet lab and computer EBUS-TBNA simulation offered important complementary learning opportunities. CONCLUSION: Computer EBUS-TBNA simulation and wet lab simulation are effective methods of learning basic EBUS-TBNA skills and appeared to be complementary.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Linear endobronchial ultrasound with transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a revolutionary bronchoscopic procedure that is challenging to learn. OBJECTIVES: To compare two methods used to teach EBUS-TBNA: wet laboratory (lab) versus computer EBUS-TBNA simulation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized study of respirologists, thoracic surgeons and trainees learning EBUS-TBNA at a two-day continuing medical education course. All subjects received education via a series of lectures and live cases, followed by randomization to learn EBUS-TBNA predominantly either by wet lab simulation (n=6) or computer simulation (n=6). All subjects then completed testing of their EBUS-TBNA skills via a previously validated method using simulated cases on EBUS-TBNA simulators and questionnaires evaluating learner preferences. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the computer EBUS-TBNA simulator group and the wet lab group in procedure time (25.3±6.1 min versus 25.2±2.5 min; P=0.984) and percentage of successful biopsies (81.3±14.9% versus 74.0±17.3%; P=0.453). The computer simulator group performed significantly better than the wet lab group in the percentage of lymph nodes correctly identified (70.4±16.7% versus 42.9±19.9%; P=0.002). Wet lab simulation was associated with increased learner confidence with operating the real EBUS-TBNA bronchoscope. All subjects responded that wet lab and computer EBUS-TBNA simulation offered important complementary learning opportunities. CONCLUSION: Computer EBUS-TBNA simulation and wet lab simulation are effective methods of learning basic EBUS-TBNA skills and appeared to be complementary.
Authors: C T Bolliger; P N Mathur; J F Beamis; H D Becker; S Cavaliere; H Colt; J P Diaz-Jimenez; J F Dumon; E Edell; K L Kovitz; H N Macha; A C Mehta; M Marel; M Noppen; J Strausz; T G Sutedja Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: David R Stather; Paul Maceachern; Karen Rimmer; Christopher A Hergott; Alain Tremblay Journal: Respiration Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 3.580
Authors: Gavin C Harewood; Jorge Pascual; Massimo Raimondo; Timothy Woodward; Margaret Johnson; Barbara McComb; John Odell; Laith H Jamil; Kanwar Rupinder S Gill; Michael B Wallace Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 5.705
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: 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