Democratizing Flexible Endoscopy Training: Noninferiority Randomized Trial Comparing a Box-Trainer vs a Virtual Reality Simulator to Prepare for the Fundamental of Endoscopic Surgery Exam.
Journal
Journal of the American College of Surgeons
ISSN: 1879-1190
Titre abrégé: J Am Coll Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9431305
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2022
01 06 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
9
3
2022
medline:
18
6
2022
entrez:
8
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A considerable number of surgical residents fail the mandated endoscopy exam despite having completed the required clinical cases. Low-cost endoscopy box trainers (BTs) could democratize training; however, their effectiveness has never been compared with higher-cost virtual reality simulators (VRSs). In this randomized noninferiority trial, endoscopy novices trained either on the VRS used in the Fundamental of Endoscopic Surgery manual skills (FESms) exam or a validated BT-the Basic Endoscopic Skills Training (BEST) box. Trainees were tested at fixed timepoints on the FESms and on standardized ex vivo models. The primary endpoint was FESms improvement at 1 week. Secondary endpoints were FESms improvement at 2 weeks, FESms pass rates, ex vivo tests performance, and trainees' feedback. Seventy-seven trainees completed the study. VRS and BT trainees showed comparable FESms improvements (25.16 ± 14.29 vs 25.58 ± 11.75 FESms points, respectively; p = 0.89), FESms pass rates (76.32% vs 61.54%, respectively; p = 0.16) and total ex vivo tasks completion times (365.76 ± 237.56 vs 322.68 ± 186.04 seconds, respectively; p = 0.55) after 1 week. Performances were comparable also after 2 weeks of training, but FESms pass rates increased significantly only in the first week. Trainees were significantly more satisfied with the BT platform (3.97 ± 1.20 vs 4.81 ± 0.40 points on a 5-point Likert scale for the VRS and the BT, respectively; p < 0.001). Simulation-based training is an effective means to develop competency in endoscopy, especially at the beginning of the learning curve. Low-cost BTs like the BEST box compare well with high-tech VRSs and could help democratize endoscopy training.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A considerable number of surgical residents fail the mandated endoscopy exam despite having completed the required clinical cases. Low-cost endoscopy box trainers (BTs) could democratize training; however, their effectiveness has never been compared with higher-cost virtual reality simulators (VRSs).
STUDY DESIGN
In this randomized noninferiority trial, endoscopy novices trained either on the VRS used in the Fundamental of Endoscopic Surgery manual skills (FESms) exam or a validated BT-the Basic Endoscopic Skills Training (BEST) box. Trainees were tested at fixed timepoints on the FESms and on standardized ex vivo models. The primary endpoint was FESms improvement at 1 week. Secondary endpoints were FESms improvement at 2 weeks, FESms pass rates, ex vivo tests performance, and trainees' feedback.
RESULTS
Seventy-seven trainees completed the study. VRS and BT trainees showed comparable FESms improvements (25.16 ± 14.29 vs 25.58 ± 11.75 FESms points, respectively; p = 0.89), FESms pass rates (76.32% vs 61.54%, respectively; p = 0.16) and total ex vivo tasks completion times (365.76 ± 237.56 vs 322.68 ± 186.04 seconds, respectively; p = 0.55) after 1 week. Performances were comparable also after 2 weeks of training, but FESms pass rates increased significantly only in the first week. Trainees were significantly more satisfied with the BT platform (3.97 ± 1.20 vs 4.81 ± 0.40 points on a 5-point Likert scale for the VRS and the BT, respectively; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Simulation-based training is an effective means to develop competency in endoscopy, especially at the beginning of the learning curve. Low-cost BTs like the BEST box compare well with high-tech VRSs and could help democratize endoscopy training.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35258487
doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000157
pii: 00019464-202206000-00035
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1201-1210Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Valentine RJ, Jones A, Biester TW, et al. General surgery workloads and practice patterns in the United States, 2007 to 2009: A 10-year update from the American Board of Surgery. Ann Surg 2011;254:520–525; discussion 525.
Decker MR, Dodgion CM, Kwok AC, et al. Specialization and the current practices of general surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 2014;218:8–15.
Jones RP, Stylianides NA, Robertson AG, et al. National survey on endoscopy training in the UK. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2015;97:386–389.
Delisle M, Chernos C, Park J, et al. Canadian general surgery residents’ need formal curricula and objective performance assessments in gastrointestinal endoscopy training: A program director census. Surg Endosc 2018;32:5012–5020.
Fonseca AL, Reddy V, Yoo PS, et al. Senior surgical resident confidence in performing flexible endoscopy: What can we do differently? J Surg Educ 2016;73:311–316.
New Requirement for Endoscopic Training and Assessment | American Board of Surgery Available from: http://www.absurgery.org/default.jsp?news_fec . Accessed May 26, 2020.
Mueller CL, Kaneva P, Fried GM, et al. Colonoscopy performance correlates with scores on the FES™ manual skills test. Surg Endosc 2014;28:3081–3085.
Poulose BK, Vassiliou MC, Dunkin BJ, et al. Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery cognitive examination: Development and validity evidence. Surg Endosc 2014;28:631–638.
Vassiliou MC, Dunkin BJ, Fried GM, et al. Fundamentals of endoscopic surgery: Creation and validation of the hands-on test. Surg Endosc 2014;28:704–711.
Gardner AK, Scott DJ, Willis RE, et al. Is current surgery resident and GI fellow training adequate to pass FES? Surg Endosc 2017;31:352–358.
Gardner AK, Ujiki MB, Dunkin BJ. Passing the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) exam: Linking specialty choice and attitudes about endoscopic surgery to success. Surg Endosc 2018;32:225–228.
Lineberry M, Park YS, Hennessy SA, et al. The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) skills test: Factors associated with first-attempt scores and pass rate. Surg Endosc 2020;34:3633–3643.
Aggarwal R, Ward J, Balasundaram I, et al. Proving the effectiveness of virtual reality simulation for training in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 2007;246:771–779.
Dawe SR, Windsor JA, Broeders JA, et al. A systematic review of surgical skills transfer after simulation-based training: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopy. Ann Surg 2014;259:236–248.
Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR Jr, Sierra R, et al. Skill retention following proficiency-based laparoscopic simulator training. Surgery 2005;138:165–170.
Snyder CW, Vandromme MJ, Tyra SL, et al. Retention of colonoscopy skills after virtual reality simulator training by independent and proctored methods. Am Surg 2010;76:743–746.
Hashimoto DA, Petrusa E, Phitayakorn R, et al. A proficiency-based virtual reality endoscopy curriculum improves performance on the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery examination. Surg Endosc 2018;32:1397–1404.
Gearhart S, Marohn M, Ngamruengphong S, et al. Development of a train-to-proficiency curriculum for the technical skills component of the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery exam. Surg Endosc 2018;32:3070–3075.
Mizota T, Anton NE, Huffman EM, et al. Development of a fundamentals of endoscopic surgery proficiency-based skills curriculum for general surgery residents. Surg Endosc 2020;34:771–778.
Goodman AJ, Melson J, Aslanian HR, et al. Endoscopic simulators. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;90:1–12.
Mueller CL, Kaneva P, Fried GM, et al. Validity evidence for a new portable, lower-cost platform for the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery skills test. Surg Endosc 2016;30:1107–1112.
Wilcox V Jr, Trus T, Salas N, et al. A proficiency-based skills training curriculum for the SAGES surgical training for endoscopic proficiency (STEP) program. J Surg Educ 2014;71:282–288.
King N, Kunac A, Johnsen E, et al. Design and validation of a cost-effective physical endoscopic simulator for fundamentals of endoscopic surgery training. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4871–4879.
Ritter EM, Taylor ZA, Wolf KR, et al. Simulation-based mastery learning for endoscopy using the endoscopy training system: a strategy to improve endoscopic skills and prepare for the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) manual skills exam. Surg Endosc 2018;32:413–420.
Aljamal Y, Cook DA, Sedlack RE, et al. An inexpensive, portable physical endoscopic simulator: Description and initial evaluation. J Surg Res 2019;243:560–566.
Ritter KA, Leifer D, Orabi D, et al. How we do it: Creation of a low-cost endoscopic skills model for fundamentals of endoscopic surgery training. J Surg Educ 2019;76:1456–1459.
Crespin OM, Okrainec A, Kwong AV, et al. Feasibility of adapting the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery trainer box to endoscopic skills training tool. Surg Endosc 2018;32:2968–2983.
Habaz I, Perretta S, Okrainec A, et al. Adaptation of the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery box for endoscopic simulation: Performance evaluation of the first 100 participants. Surg Endosc 2019;33:3444–3450.
Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, et al. CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA 2012;308:2594–2604.
Habaz I, Perretta S, Okrainec A, et al. Development and prospective validation of a scoring system for the Basic Endoscopic Skills Training (BEST) box. Surg Endosc 2021;35:6549–6555.
Mascagni P, Riva P, Guerriero L, et al. A curriculum to democratize and standardize flexible endoscopy fundamental knowledge and skills: A critical review of the first 5 years of a surgical endoscopy university diploma. Surg Endosc 2021;35:2473–2479.
Althunian TA, de Boer A, Klungel OH, et al. Methods of defining the non-inferiority margin in randomized, double-blind controlled trials: A systematic review. Trials 2017;18:107.
Create a blocked randomisation list | Sealed Envelope. Available at: https://www.sealedenvelope.com/simple-randomiser/v1/lists . Accessed June 3, 2020.
Gurusamy KS, Aggarwal R, Palanivelu L, et al. Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD006575.
Zendejas B, Brydges R, Hamstra SJ, et al. State of the evidence on simulation-based training for laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review. Ann Surg 2013;257:586–593.
Hopper AN, Jamison MH, Lewis WG. Learning curves in surgical practice. Postgrad Med J 2007;83:777–779.
Nickel F, Brzoska JA, Gondan M, et al. Virtual reality training versus blended learning of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial with laparoscopic novices. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e764.
Lineberry M, Matthew Ritter E. Psychometric properties of the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) skills examination. Surg Endosc 2017;31:5219–5227.
Ritter EM, Lineberry M, Hashimoto DA, et al. Simulation-based mastery learning significantly reduces gender differences on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery performance exam. Surg Endosc 2018;32:5006–5011.
McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Barsuk JH, et al. A critical review of simulation-based mastery learning with translational outcomes. Med Educ 2014;48:375–385.
Bencteux V, Saibro G, Shlomovitz E, et al. Automatic task recognition in a flexible endoscopy benchtop trainer with semi-supervised learning. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2020;15:1585–1595.