Assessing the Value of Endoscopy Simulator Modules Designed to Prepare Residents for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery Examination. Issue 2 (February 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Byrne, Raphael M.; Hoops, Heather E.; Herzig, Daniel O.; Diamond, Sarah J.; Lu, Kim C.; Brasel, Karen J.; Tsikitis, V. Liana
• Is Part Of: Diseases of the colon & rectum. Volume 62:Issue 2(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-02
• Subjects: Education -- Endoscopic -- Endoscopy -- Fundamentals -- Simulation -- Surgery; Colon (Anatomy) -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Rectum -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Colonic Diseases -- Periodicals; Colorectal Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.34
• DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001291
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0012-3706

Abstract

Abstract : BACKGROUND: The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination is required for all general surgery residents. The test modules are not available for practice before the examination; however, similar modules are commercially available. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine which modules are most valuable for resident training and preparation for the examination by evaluating which correlates best with experience level. DESIGN: This was a single-institution study. SETTING: A virtual reality endoscopy simulator was utilized. PARTICIPANTS: General surgery residents and faculty endoscopists performed endoscopy simulator modules (Endobasket 2, Endobubble 1 and 2, Mucosal Evaluation 2, and Basic Navigation) designed to prepare residents for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination. Residents were assigned into junior and senior groups based on the completion of a dedicated endoscopy rotation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the mean time to completion, mean number of balloons popped, and mean number of wall hits for the 3 groups. RESULTS: A total of 21 junior residents, 11 senior residents, and 3 faculty participated. There were significant differences among groups in the mean time to completion for the Endobasket, Endobubble, and Mucosal Evaluation modules. The modules that correlated best with experience level were Endobubble 2 and Mucosal Evaluation 2. For Endobubble 2, juniors were slower than seniors, who were in turn slower than faculty (junior 118.8 ± 20.55 seconds, senior 100.3 ± 11.78 seconds, faculty 87.67 ± 2.848 seconds; p < 0.01). Juniors popped fewer balloons than seniors, who popped fewer balloons than faculty (junior 9.441 ± 3.838, senior 15.62 ± 4.133, faculty 28.78 ± 1.712; p < 0.001). For Mucosal Evaluation 2, juniors were slower than seniors, who were in turn slower than faculty (junior 468.8 ± 123.5 seconds, senior 368.6 ± 63.42 seconds, faculty 233.1 ± 70.45 seconds; p < 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Study residents have not completed the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examinations, so correlation with examination performance is not yet possible. CONCLUSIONS: Performance on Endobasket, Endobubble, and Mucosal Evaluation correlated well with experience level, providing benchmarks for each level to attain in preparation for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination. SeeVideo Abstract athttp://links.lww.com/DCR/A823 .