| Literature DB >> 34917458 |
Salmaan Jawaid1,2, Peter V Draganov1, Hiroyuki Aihara3, Mouen A Khashab4, Dennis Yang1.
Abstract
Background and study aims Gastroenterology societies have recently proposed core curricula for training in per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) based on expert opinion with limited data on its applicability for advanced endoscopy fellowship (AEF) trainees. We prospectively evaluated the feasibility of a structured POEM training curriculum during a dedicated AEF and the trainee's performance during independent practice. Methods This was a single-center prospective study evaluating a trainee's performance of POEM using a structured assessment tool (POEMAT) to assess core cognitive and technical skills. The trainee's performance was then prospectively assessed during the first 12 months of independent practice. Results The trainee, who had not prior background in submucosal endoscopy, first observed 22 POEM cases followed by 35 hands-on procedures during his advanced endoscopy fellowship. Based on the POEMAT, submucosal entry and mucosal incision closure were the most challenging technical aspects, while cognitive skills were uniformly attained early in training. Overall, the trainee was able to cross the threshold for competence in his POEMAT performance score in 15 of his last 18 cases (83.3 %). The trainee performed 16 POEMs (baseline mean Eckardt 7.2) in his first 12 months of independent practice. Mean procedural time was 79.8 minutes (interquartile range: 67-94 minutes minutes) with no adverse events. Clinical success (Eckardt score < 3) was achieved in 100 % of the cases at a median follow-up of 20 weeks. Conclusions Results from this pilot study support the adoptability of the recently proposed core curricula for POEM training within the context of a dedicated AEF and provide a potential blueprint for future studies of performance in POEM among trainees. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34917458 PMCID: PMC8671003 DOI: 10.1055/a-1610-8962
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1Proposed structured POEM training curriculum.
Characteristics of POEM procedures with trainee hands-on participation (N = 36).
| Indication for POEM; n (%) | |
| Achalasia | |
Type I | 3 (8.6 %) |
Type II | 19 (54.2 %) |
Type III | 7 (20 %) |
| Jackhammer esophagus | 3 (8.6 %) |
| Esophagogastric outlet obstruction | 3 (8.6 %) |
| Mean baseline Eckardt score (range) | 7.1 (5.5–9) |
| Interventions prior to POEM; n (%) | |
None | 16 (45.7 %) |
Balloon dilation < 30 mm | 11 (31.4 %) |
Botulinum toxin injection | 10 (28.6 %) |
Pneumatic balloon dilation | 1 (2.9 %) |
Surgical myotomy | 0 |
POEM | 0 |
| Post-POEM adverse events; n (%) | 0 |
POEM, per-oral endoscopic myotomy.
Fig. 2Trainee completion of the proposed structured POEM training curriculum during the dedicated advanced endoscopy fellowship.
Competence assessment in POEM using the structured assessment tool (POEMAT).
| POEM evaluation based on POEMAT | ||||||||||||||
| Cognitive core skills | Technical core skills | Management of adverse events |
POEM difficulty Score
| |||||||||||
| Case number |
Identifying landmarks
|
Recognition esophageal wall layers
|
Identification GEJ/cardia
|
Submucosal bleb
|
Mucosal incision and submucosal entry
|
Submucosal tunneling
|
Endoscopic myotomy
|
Mucosal closure
|
Prophylactic hemostasis
|
Bleeding
|
Perforation
|
Pneumoperitoneum
| Overall Score | |
| 18 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | – | 3 | 4 | – | – | – | 0 | 8 |
| 19 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | – | 2 | 4 | 4 | – | – | 0 | 7 |
| 20 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | – | 4 | 2 | – | 3 | – | – | 0 | 7 |
| 21 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | – | – | 4 | – | – | – | 0 | 8 |
| 22 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | – | – | 4 | – | – | – | 5 | 6 |
| 23 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | – | 3 | 4 | 4 | – | – | 0 | 7 |
| 24 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | – | 3 | 4 | – | – | – | 0 | 6 |
| 25 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 9 |
| 26 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | – | 4 | 4 | – | – | 1 | 8 |
| 27 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | – | – | 4 | – | – | – | 0 | 8 |
| 28 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | – | 4 | – | – | 0 | 8 |
| 29 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | – | – | 4 | 4 | – | – | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | – | 4 | 3 | 4 | – | – | – | 0 | 9 |
| 31 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | – | 4 | 2 | – | – | – | – | 0 | 9 |
| 32 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | – | 3 | 4 | – | – | – | 0 | 6 |
| 33 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | – | – | – | 0 | 9 |
| 34 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | – | 4 | 4 | – | – | – | – | 0 | 8 |
| 35 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | – | – | 4 | – | – | – | 1 | 7 |
| Proportion of cases in which competence threshold was reached. | 94.4 % | 94.4 % | 94.4 % | 100 % | 77.7 % | 85.7 % | 100 % | 72.7 % | 100 % | 100 % | – | – | –- | 83.3 % |
The threshold for competence was defined as a rating score ≥ 3 on a 4-point grading system for individual cognitive and technical skills and ≥ 7 on a 10-point scoring system for overall assessment.
POEM, per-oral endoscopic myotomy.
Procedure difficulty was assessed based on the “FOODS” score as previously described (Bechara R et al. Dig Endosc 2019; 31: 148–155)
Able to identify the lesser and greater curvature of the stomach, gastroesophageal junction, anterior vs posterior orientation of the esophagus
Identifies and differentiates the mucosa, submucosa, circular and longitudinal esophageal muscle layers
Identifies the GEJ (gastroesophageal junction) and cardia during submucosal tunneling by recognizing narrowing of the submucosal space, presence of palisade vessels
Effectively injects into the submucosal space to lift the mucosa towards the lumen and obtaining a submucosal cushion
Effectively creates a 1.5–2 cm mucosal incision and trims the submucosa at the edges to facilitate insertion of the endoscope without “overstretching” the entry site or causing bleeding.
Effective submucosal tunneling (dissects in the plane near the muscular propria and away from the mucosa – able to maintain orientation in the tunnel)
Can selectively perform either circular or full-thickness myotomy (circular and longitudinal muscles)
Effectively approximates the mucosal incision borders using either clips and/or sutures
Identifies and prophylactically ablates visible vessels
Effectively achieves intraprocedural hemostasis
Identifies when mucosal injury has occurred and is able to approximate the defect using clips/sutures/stenting as indicated
Recognizes need for abdominal decompression (decrease in tidal volume and/or increase in peak/plateau pressures) and capable of using Veress needle/angiocatheter for abdominal decompression
Patient and POEM characteristics performed by trainee during independent practice (n = 16).
| Mean age; (interquartile range) | 43 (27.7–54.5) |
| Indication for POEM; n (%) | |
| Achalasia | |
Type I | 0 |
Type II | 13 (81.3 %) |
Type III | 0 |
| Spastic esophageal dysmotility | 1 (6.2 %) |
| Esophagogastric outlet obstruction | 2 (12.5 %) |
| Mean baseline Eckardt score (interquartile range) | 7.2 (5.5–8.8) |
| Interventions prior to POEM; n (%) | |
None | |
Balloon dilation < 30 mm | 5 (31.3 %) |
Botulinum toxin injection | 4 (25 %) |
Pneumatic balloon dilation | 0 |
Surgical myotomy | 1(6.3 %) |
POEM | 0 |
| POEM technical success; n (%) | 16 (100 %) |
| Mean length of POEM myotomy, cm (interquartile range) | |
Esophageal | 9.2 (8–10) |
Gastric | 2.3 (2–3) |
| Total procedure time; mean (interquartile range) minutes | 79.8 (67–94) |
| Adverse events; n (%) | 0 |
| Mean post-POEM Eckardt score (interquartile range) | 0.2 (0–0.25) |
POEM, per-oral endoscopic myotomy.