| Literature DB >> 25295058 |
Akio Katanuma1, Takao Itoi2, Junko Umeda2, Ryosuke Tonozuka2, Shuntaro Mukai2, Kei Yane1, Toshifumi Kin1, Kazuaki Matsumoto1, Tomoaki Matsumori1, Katsushige Gon1, Ryo Takaki1, Akiko Tomonari1.
Abstract
Aim. We aimed to develop a simulation dry model for endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) and needle knife precut sphincterotomy (NKP) and to evaluate its usefulness as a training simulator. Materials and Methods. An endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography trainer was used as a duodenum, bile duct, and papilla simulator. A simulated papilla was created with a piece of rolled uncured ham, and ES and NKP were performed. Hands-on training was carried out using this model, and success and failure of the procedures were evaluated. A questionnaire survey was conducted among the participants to assess the performance and usefulness of the dry model for ES and NKP training. Results. Twenty-two endoscopists participated in the hands-on training using this dry model. ES was successful in 33 out of 34 attempts (97%) whereas NKP was successful in all 7 attempts (100%). Based on the results of the questionnaire survey, the median score for realism was 7 (range: 2-9) for ES and 8 for NKP on a scale of 1 to 10. Conclusions. The dry model using an uncured ham provides a condition closely similar to actual clinical practice and is useful as a training model for ES and NKP.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25295058 PMCID: PMC4176645 DOI: 10.1155/2014/908693
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6121 Impact factor: 2.260
Figure 1Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography trainer (the Chamberlain Group, LLC, Great Barrington, MA, USA).
Figure 2Creation of the simulated papilla. (a) A piece of rolled uncured ham was inserted into the opening with the tip protruding. (b) For the transmission of current, the model was earthed via a conventional cable connected to the simulated papilla.
Figure 3(a) Endoscopic observation of the papilla. (b) Insertion of the Autotome into the simulated papilla. (c) Performance of ES while the cutting direction was controlled by manipulating the endoscope and elevator function.
Figure 4(a) Performance of NKP using an RX knife (Boston Scientific). (b) Performance of NKP while the cutting direction was controlled by the elevator function.
Figure 5Hands-on training using the dry model. A trainee performed ES with the assistance of an experienced ERCP endoscopist.
Questionnaire regarding the dry model.
| Please rate the dry model training you are assigned to using the indicated scales |
|
|
|
|
| (Please circle a number, where 1 = not realistic; 10 = realistic): |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
|
|
|
| (Please circle a number, where 1 = not realistic; 10 = realistic): |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
|
|
|
| (Please circle a number, where 1 = not confident; 10 = confident): |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
|
|
|
| (Please circle a number, where 1 = not confident; 10 = confident): |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
|
|
|
| (Please circle a number, where 1 = not realistic; 1 = realistic): |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
|
|
|
| (Please circle a number, where 1 = not confident; 10 = confident): |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
|
|
|
| (Please circle a number, where 1 = not confident; 10 = confident): |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
ES: endoscopic sphincterotomy; NKP: needle knife precut sphincterotomy.
ERCP and ES experience of the participants of the hands-on training.
| ERCP experience (years) | Number of participants |
|---|---|
| 0 | 2 |
| <5 | 11 |
| 5–9 | 3 |
| >10 | 6 |
| ES experience (number of cases) | |
| Beginners, <10 | 3 |
| Intermediate, 10–100 | 12 |
| Expert, >101 | 7 |
Results of a questionnaire survey after hands-on training.
| Q1. Realism, scope manipulation | Q2. Realism, ES | Q3 Possibility-improving their own ES skill | Q4. Recommend colleagues, ES | Q5. †Realism, NKP | Q6. †Possibility-improving their own NKP skills | Q7. †Recommend colleagues, NKP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All participants | 6 (3–9) | 7 (2–9) | 8 (0–10) | 10 (7–10) | 8 (8–10) | 10 (8–10) | 10 (8–10) |
| ES experience§ | |||||||
| Beginners, <10 cases | 8 (7–9) | 7.5 (6–9) | 10 (9-10) | 10 (10) | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
| Intermediate, 10–100 cases | 5 (3–8) | 7 (4–8) | 8 (5–10) | 10 (7–10) | n.a. | 10 (8–10) | 10 (8–10) |
| Expert, >100 cases | 6 (4–7) | 7 (2–9) | 7 (0–8) | 10 (8–10) | 8 (8–10) | 10 (10) | 10 (10) |
Data presented as median, range.
∗See Table 1 for details of each question.
†Only 6 participants performed NKP procedures.
§Q1 to Q4: there were no significant differences in the scores between beginner versus intermediate and beginner versus expert.
Q6, Q7: there were no significant differences in the scores between beginner versus intermediate and beginner versus expert.