Ilay Habaz1, Silvana Perretta2, Allan Okrainec1, Oscar M Crespin1, Andrea V Kwong1, Ethan Weiss1, Else van der Velden2, Ludovica Guerriero2, Fabio Longo2, Pietro Mascagni2, Louis W C Liu3, Timothy D Jackson1, Lee L Swanstrom2,4, Eran Shlomovitz5,6,7. 1. Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 2. Institute for Image Guided Surgery IHU-Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Division of GI/MIS, The Oregon Clinic, Portland, OR, USA. 5. Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Eran.Shlomovitz@uhn.ca. 6. Institute for Image Guided Surgery IHU-Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. Eran.Shlomovitz@uhn.ca. 7. Division of Interventional Radiology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Eran.Shlomovitz@uhn.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The paucity of readily accessible, cost-effective models for the simulation, practice, and evaluation of endoscopic skills present an ongoing barrier for resident training. We have previously described a system for conversion of the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery box (FLS) for flexible endoscopic simulation. Six endoscopic tasks focusing on scope manipulation, and other clinically relevant endoscopic skills are performed within a 5-min time limit per task. This study describes our experience and validation results with the first 100 participants. METHODS: A total of 100 participants were evaluated on the simulator. Thirty individuals were classified as experts (having done over 200 endoscopic procedures), and 70 were classified as trainees (39 individuals reported having no prior endoscopy experience). Of the 100 participants, 55 individuals were retested on the simulator within a period of 4 months. These 55 individuals were also evaluated using the "Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills" (GAGES). T-tests and Pearson correlations were used where appropriate, values less than 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Experts completed all six tasks significantly faster than trainees. For the 55 participants who were retested on the simulator, all tasks demonstrated evidence of test-retest reliability for both experts and trainees who did not practice in between tests. Moderate correlations between lower completion times and higher GAGES scores were observed for all tasks except the clipping task. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the first 100 participants provide evidence for the simulator's validity. Based on task completion times, we found that experts perform significantly better than trainees. Additionally, preliminary data demonstrate evidence of test-retest reliability, as well as GAGES score correlation. Additional studies to determine and validate a scoring system for this simulator are ongoing.
BACKGROUND: The paucity of readily accessible, cost-effective models for the simulation, practice, and evaluation of endoscopic skills present an ongoing barrier for resident training. We have previously described a system for conversion of the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery box (FLS) for flexible endoscopic simulation. Six endoscopic tasks focusing on scope manipulation, and other clinically relevant endoscopic skills are performed within a 5-min time limit per task. This study describes our experience and validation results with the first 100 participants. METHODS: A total of 100 participants were evaluated on the simulator. Thirty individuals were classified as experts (having done over 200 endoscopic procedures), and 70 were classified as trainees (39 individuals reported having no prior endoscopy experience). Of the 100 participants, 55 individuals were retested on the simulator within a period of 4 months. These 55 individuals were also evaluated using the "Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills" (GAGES). T-tests and Pearson correlations were used where appropriate, values less than 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Experts completed all six tasks significantly faster than trainees. For the 55 participants who were retested on the simulator, all tasks demonstrated evidence of test-retest reliability for both experts and trainees who did not practice in between tests. Moderate correlations between lower completion times and higher GAGES scores were observed for all tasks except the clipping task. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the first 100 participants provide evidence for the simulator's validity. Based on task completion times, we found that experts perform significantly better than trainees. Additionally, preliminary data demonstrate evidence of test-retest reliability, as well as GAGES score correlation. Additional studies to determine and validate a scoring system for this simulator are ongoing.
Authors: Melina C Vassiliou; Pepa A Kaneva; Benjamin K Poulose; Brian J Dunkin; Jeffrey M Marks; Riadh Sadik; Gideon Sroka; Mehran Anvari; Klaus Thaler; Gina L Adrales; Jeffrey W Hazey; Jenifer R Lightdale; Vic Velanovich; Lee L Swanstrom; John D Mellinger; Gerald M Fried Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-01-29 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: David Berger-Richardson; Yo Kurashima; Daniel von Renteln; Pepa Kaneva; Liane S Feldman; Gerald M Fried; Melina C Vassiliou Journal: Surg Innov Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 2.058
Authors: Kent R Van Sickle; Lauren Buck; Ross Willis; Alicia Mangram; Michael S Truitt; Mohsen Shabahang; Scott Thomas; Lee Trombetta; Brian Dunkin; Daniel Scott Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Christopher C Thompson; Pichamol Jirapinyo; Nitin Kumar; Amy Ou; Andrew Camacho; Balazs Lengyel; Michele B Ryan Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2014-04-25 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Arjun D Koch; Sonja N Buzink; Jeroen Heemskerk; Sanne M B I Botden; Roeland Veenendaal; Jack J Jakimowicz; Erik J Schoon Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-05-22 Impact factor: 4.584