Reperfused human cadaver as a new simulation model for colonoscopy: a pilot study.
Education, medical
Endoscopy, gastrointestinal
Learning curve
Simulation training
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
received:
02
09
2022
accepted:
06
11
2022
medline:
11
4
2023
pubmed:
29
11
2022
entrez:
28
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The reperfused human cadaver is a validated simulator for surgery. We aimed to use it as a colonoscopy simulator. Novices, intermediates and skilled participants in gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. They performed one colonoscopy on a reperfused human cadaver and reaching rates, time, and length needed to reach anatomical landmarks were reported for construct validity analysis. We also assessed our model realism (SRS survey), educational content (CVS survey) and task load (NASA-TLX index). Score items were collected and defined as "favorable" when items were rated ≥ 5/7 with an inter-quartile range (IQR) overlapping four, and "very favorable" when rated ≥ 5/7 with an IQR excluding four (neutral). Primary endpoints were the rectosigmoid junction (RSJ) reaching rate and the descending colon (DC) reaching time. Secondary objectives were SRS, CVS and NASA-TLX questionnaire results. A total of 11 skilled participants, 5 intermediates and 8 novices were included. Skilled participants reached RSJ more often than novice and intermediary groups, respectively, 100%, 80% and 75% without differing significantly. They reached DC more frequently (100% for skilled, 80% for intermediates and 50% for novices, p = 0.018). The median time to reach RSJ (59, 272 and 686 s for skilled, intermediates and novices group, respectively) and DC (90, 534 and 1360 s for skilled, intermediates and novices) was significantly shorter for skilled participants (both p < .01). Nineteen out of the 22 items composing the realism survey obtained "very favorable" and "favorable" scores. Educational content was designated as "very favorable". Mental, physical, and technical demands were gradually higher the lower the initial level of experience. Reperfused human cadaver model has the potential to be valid simulation tool for diagnostic colonoscopy training.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The reperfused human cadaver is a validated simulator for surgery. We aimed to use it as a colonoscopy simulator.
METHODS
Novices, intermediates and skilled participants in gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. They performed one colonoscopy on a reperfused human cadaver and reaching rates, time, and length needed to reach anatomical landmarks were reported for construct validity analysis. We also assessed our model realism (SRS survey), educational content (CVS survey) and task load (NASA-TLX index). Score items were collected and defined as "favorable" when items were rated ≥ 5/7 with an inter-quartile range (IQR) overlapping four, and "very favorable" when rated ≥ 5/7 with an IQR excluding four (neutral). Primary endpoints were the rectosigmoid junction (RSJ) reaching rate and the descending colon (DC) reaching time. Secondary objectives were SRS, CVS and NASA-TLX questionnaire results.
RESULTS
A total of 11 skilled participants, 5 intermediates and 8 novices were included. Skilled participants reached RSJ more often than novice and intermediary groups, respectively, 100%, 80% and 75% without differing significantly. They reached DC more frequently (100% for skilled, 80% for intermediates and 50% for novices, p = 0.018). The median time to reach RSJ (59, 272 and 686 s for skilled, intermediates and novices group, respectively) and DC (90, 534 and 1360 s for skilled, intermediates and novices) was significantly shorter for skilled participants (both p < .01). Nineteen out of the 22 items composing the realism survey obtained "very favorable" and "favorable" scores. Educational content was designated as "very favorable". Mental, physical, and technical demands were gradually higher the lower the initial level of experience.
CONCLUSIONS
Reperfused human cadaver model has the potential to be valid simulation tool for diagnostic colonoscopy training.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36443563
doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09763-0
pii: 10.1007/s00464-022-09763-0
pmc: PMC9707156
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3224-3232Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Ward ST, Hancox A, Mohammed MA et al (2017) The learning curve to achieve satisfactory completion rates in upper GI endoscopy: an analysis of a national training database. Gut 66:1022–1033. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310443
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310443
pubmed: 26976733
Ward ST, Mohammed MA, Walt R et al (2014) An analysis of the learning curve to achieve competency at colonoscopy using the JETS database. Gut 63:1746–1754. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305973
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305973
pubmed: 24470280
Sedlack RE, Coyle WJ, Sedlack RE et al (2016) Assessment of competency in endoscopy: establishing and validating generalizable competency benchmarks for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 83:516-523.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.04.041
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.04.041
pubmed: 26077455
Dekker E, Houwen BBSL, Puig I et al (2020) Curriculum for optical diagnosis training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) position statement. Endoscopy 52:899–923. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1231-5123
doi: 10.1055/a-1231-5123
pubmed: 32882737
Singh S, Sedlack RE, Cook DA (2014) Effects of simulation-based training in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 12:1611-1623.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2014.01.037
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.01.037
pubmed: 24509241
Khan R, Plahouras J, Johnston BC et al (2019) Virtual reality simulation training in endoscopy: a Cochrane review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 51:653–664. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0894-4400
doi: 10.1055/a-0894-4400
pubmed: 31071757
Ekkelenkamp VE, Koch AD, de Man RA, Kuipers EJ (2016) Training and competence assessment in GI endoscopy: a systematic review. Gut 65:607–615. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307173
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307173
pubmed: 25636697
Technology Committee ASGE, Goodman AJ, Melson J, Aslanian HR, Bhutani MS, Krishnan K, Lichtenstein DR, Navaneethan U, Pannala R, Parsi MA, Schulman AR, Sethi A, Sullivan SA, Thosani N, Trikudanathan G, Trindade AJ, Watson RR, Maple JT (2019) Endoscopic simulators. Gastrointest Endosc 90:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.037
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.037
Sedlack RE, Kolars JC, Alexander JA (2004) Computer simulation training enhances patient comfort during endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2:348–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1542-3565(04)00067-9
doi: 10.1016/S1542-3565(04)00067-9
pubmed: 15067632
Ahlberg G, Hultcrantz R, Jaramillo E et al (2005) Virtual reality colonoscopy simulation: a compulsory practice for the future colonoscopist? Endoscopy 37:1198–1204. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-921049
doi: 10.1055/s-2005-921049
pubmed: 16329017
Finocchiaro M, Cortegoso Valdivia P, Hernansanz A et al (2021) Training simulators for gastrointestinal endoscopy: current and future perspectives. Cancers 13:1427. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13061427
doi: 10.3390/cancers13061427
pubmed: 33804773
pmcid: 8004017
King N, Kunac A, Merchant AM (2016) A review of endoscopic simulation: current evidence on simulators and curricula. J Surg Educ 73:12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.09.001
doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.09.001
pubmed: 26699281
Ahmed K, Aydin A, Dasgupta P et al (2015) A novel cadaveric simulation program in urology. J Surg Educ 72:556–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.01.005
doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.01.005
pubmed: 25683152
Wyles SM, Miskovic D, Ni Z et al (2011) Analysis of laboratory-based laparoscopic colorectal surgery workshops within the English national training programme. Surg Endosc 25:1559–1566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1434-y
doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1434-y
pubmed: 21058021
Danion J, Breque C, Oriot D et al (2020) La technologie SimLife® dans la formation du chirurgien. J Chir Viscérale 157:S119–S124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchirv.2020.02.005
doi: 10.1016/j.jchirv.2020.02.005
Faure JP, Breque C, Danion J et al (2017) SIM Life: a new surgical simulation device using a human perfused cadaver. Surg Radiol Anat 39:211–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-016-1715-9
doi: 10.1007/s00276-016-1715-9
pubmed: 27315801
Jones MW, Deere MJ, Harris JR et al (2017) Fabrication of an inexpensive but effective colonoscopic simulator. JSLS 21:e2017.00002. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2017.00002
doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2017.00002
pubmed: 29353990
pmcid: 5772033
Gages: a valid measurment tool for technical skills in flexible endoscopy—SAGES abstract archives. SAGES. Im Internet: https://www.sages.org/meetings/annual-meeting/abstracts-archive/gages-a-valid-measurment-tool-for-technical-skills-in-flexible-endoscopy/ ; Stand: 10.10.2021
Walsh C, Umar S, Ghassemi S et al (2020) Colonoscopy core curriculum. Gastrointest Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.054
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.054
pubmed: 32854938
pmcid: 8961206
Reumkens A, Rondagh EJA, Bakker CM et al (2016) Post-colonoscopy complications: a systematic review, time trends, and meta-analysis of population-based studies. Am J Gastroenterol 111:1092–1101. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2016.234
doi: 10.1038/ajg.2016.234
pubmed: 27296945
Camus M, Jacques J, Mouel JL et al (2019) L’offre de formation initiale en simulation en endoscopie digestive en France. In Endoscopy. Georg Thieme Verlag KG, p. 000535
Jirapinyo P, Thompson CC (2015) Current status of endoscopic simulation in gastroenterology fellowship training programs. Surg Endosc 29:1913–1919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3884-0
doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3884-0
pubmed: 25303910
Kim SC, Fisher JG, Delman KA et al (2016) Cadaver-based simulation increases resident confidence, initial exposure to fundamental techniques, and may augment operative autonomy. J Surg Educ 73:e33–e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.06.014
doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.06.014
pubmed: 27488813
Balekuduru A, Appaji A (2021) Therapeutic endoscopic procedures on a human cadaver—a pilot feasibility study. J Dig Endosc 12:036–042. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1728223
doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1728223
Liu W, Zheng X, Wu R et al (2018) Novel laparoscopic training system with continuously perfused ex-vivo porcine liver for hepatobiliary surgery. Surg Endosc 32:743–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5731-6
doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5731-6
pubmed: 28733731
Ansell J, Mason J, Warren N et al (2012) Systematic review of validity testing in colonoscopy simulation. Surg Endosc 26:3040–3052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2332-2
doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2332-2
pubmed: 22648104
Hill A, Horswill MS, Plooy AM, Watson MO, Karamatic R, Basit TA, Wallis GM, Riek S, Burgess-Limerick R, Hewett DG (2012) Assessing the realism of colonoscopy simulation: the development of an instrument and systematic comparison of 4 simulators. Gastrointest Endosc 75:631–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.10.030
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.10.030
pubmed: 22341108
Koch AD, Haringsma J, Schoon EJ et al (2008) A second-generation virtual reality simulator for colonoscopy: validation and initial experience. Endoscopy 40:735–738. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1077508
doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1077508
pubmed: 18698536
Moorthy K, Munz Y, Orchard TR, Gould S, Rockall T, Darzi A (2004) An innovative method for the assessment of skills in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Surg Endosc 18:1613–1619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-9002-y
doi: 10.1007/s00464-004-9002-y
pubmed: 15931472