BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy simulators that enable one to perform computer-based virtual colonoscopy now exist. However, data regarding the effectiveness of this virtual training are limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether virtual reality simulator training translates into improved patient-based colonoscopy performance. METHODS: The present study was a prospective controlled trial involving 18 residents between postgraduate years 2 and 4 with no previous colonoscopy experience. These residents were assigned to receive 16 h of virtual reality simulator training or no training. Both groups were evaluated on their first five patient-based colonoscopies. The primary outcome was the number of proctor 'assists' required per colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included insertion time, depth of insertion, cecal intubation rate, proctor- and nurse-rated competence, and patient-rated pain. RESULTS: The simulator group required significantly fewer proctor assists than the control group (1.94 versus 3.43; P ≤ 0.001), inserted the colonoscope further unassisted (43 cm versus 24 cm; P=0.003) and there was a trend to intubate the cecum more often (26% versus 10%; P=0.06). The simulator group received higher ratings of competence from both the proctors (2.28 versus 1.88 of 5; P=0.02) and the endoscopy nurses (2.56 versus 2.05 of 5; P=0.001). There were no significant differences in proctor-, nurse- or patient-rated pain, or attention to discomfort. CONCLULSIONS: Computer-based colonoscopy simulation in the initial stages of training improved novice trainees' patient-based colonoscopy performance.
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy simulators that enable one to perform computer-based virtual colonoscopy now exist. However, data regarding the effectiveness of this virtual training are limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether virtual reality simulator training translates into improved patient-based colonoscopy performance. METHODS: The present study was a prospective controlled trial involving 18 residents between postgraduate years 2 and 4 with no previous colonoscopy experience. These residents were assigned to receive 16 h of virtual reality simulator training or no training. Both groups were evaluated on their first five patient-based colonoscopies. The primary outcome was the number of proctor 'assists' required per colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included insertion time, depth of insertion, cecal intubation rate, proctor- and nurse-rated competence, and patient-rated pain. RESULTS: The simulator group required significantly fewer proctor assists than the control group (1.94 versus 3.43; P ≤ 0.001), inserted the colonoscope further unassisted (43 cm versus 24 cm; P=0.003) and there was a trend to intubate the cecum more often (26% versus 10%; P=0.06). The simulator group received higher ratings of competence from both the proctors (2.28 versus 1.88 of 5; P=0.02) and the endoscopy nurses (2.56 versus 2.05 of 5; P=0.001). There were no significant differences in proctor-, nurse- or patient-rated pain, or attention to discomfort. CONCLULSIONS: Computer-based colonoscopy simulation in the initial stages of training improved novice trainees' patient-based colonoscopy performance.
Authors: James G Bittner; Jeffrey M Marks; Brian J Dunkin; William O Richards; Raymond P Onders; John D Mellinger Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Joshua J Felsher; Max Olesevich; Houssam Farres; Michael Rosen; Alicia Fanning; Brian J Dunkin; Jeffrey M Marks Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Jonathan Cohen; Seth A Cohen; Kinjal C Vora; Xiaonan Xue; J Steven Burdick; Simmy Bank; Edmund J Bini; Henry Bodenheimer; Maurice Cerulli; Hans Gerdes; David Greenwald; Frank Gress; Irwin Grosman; Robert Hawes; Gerard Mullin; Gerard Mullen; Felice Schnoll-Sussman; Anthony Starpoli; Peter Stevens; Scott Tenner; Gerald Villanueva Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Edmund J Bini; Babak Firoozi; Rosa J Choung; Eyad M Ali; Mohamed Osman; Elizabeth H Weinshel Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Sachin Wani; Gregory A Coté; Rajesh Keswani; Daniel Mullady; Riad Azar; Faris Murad; Steve Edmundowicz; Srinadh Komanduri; Lee McHenry; Mohammad A Al-Haddad; Matthew Hall; Christine E Hovis; Thomas G Hollander; Dayna Early Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Rishad Khan; Joanne Plahouras; Bradley C Johnston; Michael A Scaffidi; Samir C Grover; Catharine M Walsh Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-08-17