Literature DB >> 30128824

A task and performance analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) surgery.

Berk Cetinsaya1, Mark A Gromski2, Sangrock Lee3, Zhaohui Xia3, Doga Demirel1, Tansel Halic4, Coskun Bayrak5, Cullen Jackson6, Suvranu De3, Sudeep Hegde6, Jonah Cohen6, Mandeep Sawhney6, Stavros N Stavropoulos7, Daniel B Jones6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: ESD is an endoscopic technique for en bloc resection of gastrointestinal lesions. ESD is a widely-used in Japan and throughout Asia, but not as prevalent in Europe or the US. The procedure is technically challenging and has higher adverse events (bleeding, perforation) compared to endoscopic mucosal resection. Inadequate training platforms and lack of established training curricula have restricted its wide acceptance in the US. Thus, we aim to develop a Virtual Endoluminal Surgery Simulator (VESS) for objective ESD training and assessment. In this work, we performed task and performance analysis of ESD surgeries.
METHODS: We performed a detailed colorectal ESD task analysis and identified the critical ESD steps for lesion identification, marking, injection, circumferential cutting, dissection, intraprocedural complication management, and post-procedure examination. We constructed a hierarchical task tree that elaborates the order of tasks in these steps. Furthermore, we developed quantitative ESD performance metrics. We measured task times and scores of 16 ESD surgeries performed by four different endoscopic surgeons.
RESULTS: The average time of the marking, injection, and circumferential cutting phases are 203.4 (σ: 205.46), 83.5 (σ: 49.92), 908.4 s. (σ: 584.53), respectively. Cutting the submucosal layer takes most of the time of overall ESD procedure time with an average of 1394.7 s (σ: 908.43). We also performed correlation analysis (Pearson's test) among the performance scores of the tasks. There is a moderate positive correlation (R = 0.528, p = 0.0355) between marking scores and total scores, a strong positive correlation (R = 0.7879, p = 0.0003) between circumferential cutting and submucosal dissection and total scores. Similarly, we noted a strong positive correlation (R = 0.7095, p = 0.0021) between circumferential cutting and submucosal dissection and marking scores.
CONCLUSIONS: We elaborated ESD tasks and developed quantitative performance metrics used in analysis of actual surgery performance. These ESD metrics will be used in future validation studies of our VESS simulator.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colorectal cancer; ESD; Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Endoscopic training

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30128824      PMCID: PMC6344246          DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6379-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  24 in total

1.  Safety and efficacy of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection by the trainee endoscopists.

Authors:  Keiko Niimi; Mitsuhiro Fujishiro; Osamu Goto; Shinya Kodashima; Kazuhiko Koike
Journal:  Dig Endosc       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 7.559

Review 2.  Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Authors:  Sergey V Kantsevoy; Douglas G Adler; Jason D Conway; David L Diehl; Francis A Farraye; Richard Kwon; Petar Mamula; Sarah Rodriguez; Raj J Shah; Louis Michel Wong Kee Song; William M Tierney
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  The learning curve for endoscopic submucosal dissection in an established experimental setting.

Authors:  Masayuki Kato; Mark Gromski; Yunho Jung; Ram Chuttani; Kai Matthes
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jing Wang; Xiao-Hua Zhang; Jian Ge; Chong-Mei Yang; Ji-Yong Liu; Shu-Lei Zhao
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Recent technical advances for safe and successful procedures.

Authors:  Katsumi Yamamoto; Tomoki Michida; Tsutomu Nishida; Shiro Hayashi; Masafumi Naito; Toshifumi Ito
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-10-10

6.  Advantage of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with EMR for early gastric cancer.

Authors:  Shiro Oka; Shinji Tanaka; Iwao Kaneko; Ritsuo Mouri; Mayuko Hirata; Toru Kawamura; Masaharu Yoshihara; Kazuaki Chayama
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2006-09-20       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Learning colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective learning curve study using a novel ex vivo simulator.

Authors:  Mark A Gromski; Jonah Cohen; Kayoko Saito; Jean-Michel Gonzalez; Mandeep Sawhney; Changdon Kang; Andrew Moore; Kai Matthes
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Learning curve for endoscopic submucosal dissection of large colorectal tumors.

Authors:  Kinichi Hotta; Tsuneo Oyama; Tomoaki Shinohara; Yoshinori Miyata; Akiko Takahashi; Yoko Kitamura; Akihisa Tomori
Journal:  Dig Endosc       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 7.559

Review 9.  Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms.

Authors:  Taku Sakamoto; Hiroyuki Takamaru; Genki Mori; Masayoshi Yamada; Yuzuru Kinjo; Eriko So; Seiichiro Abe; Yosuke Otake; Takeshi Nakajima; Takahisa Matsuda; Yutaka Saito
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2014-03

Review 10.  Current innovations in endoscopic therapy for the management of colorectal cancer: from endoscopic submucosal dissection to endoscopic full-thickness resection.

Authors:  Shintaro Fujihara; Hirohito Mori; Hideki Kobara; Noriko Nishiyama; Tae Matsunaga; Maki Ayaki; Tatsuo Yachida; Asahiro Morishita; Kunihiko Izuishi; Tsutomu Masaki
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 3.411

View more
  3 in total

1.  Endoscopic submucosal dissection: a cognitive task analysis framework toward training design.

Authors:  Sudeep Hegde; Mark A Gromski; Tansel Halic; Melih Turkseven; Zhaohui Xia; Berk Çetinsaya; Mandeep S Sawhney; Daniel B Jones; Suvranu De; Cullen D Jackson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Hierarchical task analysis of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty.

Authors:  James Dials; Doga Demirel; Tansel Halic; Suvranu De; Adam Ryason; Shanker Kundumadam; Mohammad Al-Haddad; Mark A Gromski
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 3.453

3.  A partition-based optimization model and its performance benchmark for Generative Anatomy Modeling Language.

Authors:  Doga Demirel; Berk Cetinsaya; Tansel Halic; Sinan Kockara; Dirk Reiners; Shahryar Ahmadi; Sreekanth Arikatla
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 4.589

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.