Multi-institutional beta testing of a novel cervical esophagogastric anastomosis simulator.

A novel simulator developed to offer hands-on practice for the stapled side-to-side cervical esophagogastric anastomosis was tested previously in a single-center study that supported its value in surgical education. This multi-institutional trial was undertaken to evaluate validity evidence from 6 independent thoracic surgery residency programs. After a virtual session for simulation leaders, learners viewed a narrated video of the procedure and then alternated as surgeon or first assistant. Using an online survey, perceived value was measured across fidelity domains: physical attributes, realism of materials, realism of experience, value, and relevance. Objective assessment included time, number of sutures tearing, bubble test, and direct inspection. Comparison across programs was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Surveys were completed by 63 participants as surgeons (17 junior and 20 senior residents, 18 fellows, and 8 faculty). For 3 of 5 tasks, mean ratings of 4.35 to 4.44 correlated with "somewhat easy" to "very easy" to perform. The interrupted outer layer of the anastomosis rated lowest, suggesting this task was the most difficult. The simulator was rated as a highly valuable training tool. For the objective measurements of performance, "direct inspection" rated highest followed by "time." A total of 90.5% of participants rated the simulator as ready for use with only minor improvements. Results from this multi-institutional study suggest the cervical esophagogastric anastomosis simulator is a useful adjunct for training and assessment. Further research is needed to determine its value in assessing competence for independent operating and associations between improved measured performance and clinical outcomes.

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest.