Head-to-head comparison of practice with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography computer and mechanical simulators by experienced endoscopists and trainees

Joseph Leung, Brian Lim, Catherine Ngo, Wai Cheung Lao, Luk Yiu Wing, Ivan Hung, Michael Li, Felix W. Leung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Aim: The endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) mechanical simulator (EMS) and computer simulator (ECS) are described herein. No direct hands-on comparison has been reported to reflect the perception of trainers and trainees regarding the efficacy of each model for trainee ERCP education. We compared the trainers' and trainees' assessments of the EMS and ECS for trainee education. Methods: Eighteen gastrointestinal trainees and 16 trainers with varying ERCP experience completed a questionnaire survey before and after practice with each simulator at hands-on ERCP practice workshops. They carried out scope insertion, selective bile duct cannulation, guidewire negotiation of a bile duct stricture, biliary papillotomy and insertion of a single biliary stent using both simulators. Main outcome measurement was respondents' assessments of comparative efficacy of EMS and ECS practice for trainee education. Results: Compared to pre-practice evaluation, both EMS and ECS received higher scores after hands-on practice. Both trainers and trainees showed significantly greater increases in scores for EMS when compared with ECS in facilitating understanding of ERCP procedure, enhancing confidence in carrying out ERCP and the simulator as a credible option for supplementing clinical ERCP training (P < 0.05). Participants also scored EMS significantly higher in realism and usefulness as an instructional tool. Conclusions: Both computer and mechanical simulators are accepted modalities for ERCP training. The current data (based on a head-to-head comparison of hands-on practice experience) indicate EMS practice is rated higher than ECS practice in supplementing clinical ERCP training. EMS offers the additional advantage of coordinated practice with real equipment and accessories.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)175-181
Number of pages7
JournalDigestive Endoscopy
Volume24
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2012

Fingerprint

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
Education
Bile Ducts
Negotiating
Catheterization

Keywords

  • computer simulator
  • endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
  • ERCP mechanical simulator
  • simulation training

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Head-to-head comparison of practice with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography computer and mechanical simulators by experienced endoscopists and trainees. / Leung, Joseph; Lim, Brian; Ngo, Catherine; Lao, Wai Cheung; Wing, Luk Yiu; Hung, Ivan; Li, Michael; Leung, Felix W.

In: Digestive Endoscopy, Vol. 24, No. 3, 05.2012, p. 175-181.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Leung, Joseph ; Lim, Brian ; Ngo, Catherine ; Lao, Wai Cheung ; Wing, Luk Yiu ; Hung, Ivan ; Li, Michael ; Leung, Felix W. / Head-to-head comparison of practice with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography computer and mechanical simulators by experienced endoscopists and trainees. In: Digestive Endoscopy. 2012 ; Vol. 24, No. 3. pp. 175-181.
@article{9983c33d2ad0453dbcc2c6e2ee6f75a8,
title = "Head-to-head comparison of practice with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography computer and mechanical simulators by experienced endoscopists and trainees",
abstract = "Background and Aim: The endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) mechanical simulator (EMS) and computer simulator (ECS) are described herein. No direct hands-on comparison has been reported to reflect the perception of trainers and trainees regarding the efficacy of each model for trainee ERCP education. We compared the trainers' and trainees' assessments of the EMS and ECS for trainee education. Methods: Eighteen gastrointestinal trainees and 16 trainers with varying ERCP experience completed a questionnaire survey before and after practice with each simulator at hands-on ERCP practice workshops. They carried out scope insertion, selective bile duct cannulation, guidewire negotiation of a bile duct stricture, biliary papillotomy and insertion of a single biliary stent using both simulators. Main outcome measurement was respondents' assessments of comparative efficacy of EMS and ECS practice for trainee education. Results: Compared to pre-practice evaluation, both EMS and ECS received higher scores after hands-on practice. Both trainers and trainees showed significantly greater increases in scores for EMS when compared with ECS in facilitating understanding of ERCP procedure, enhancing confidence in carrying out ERCP and the simulator as a credible option for supplementing clinical ERCP training (P < 0.05). Participants also scored EMS significantly higher in realism and usefulness as an instructional tool. Conclusions: Both computer and mechanical simulators are accepted modalities for ERCP training. The current data (based on a head-to-head comparison of hands-on practice experience) indicate EMS practice is rated higher than ECS practice in supplementing clinical ERCP training. EMS offers the additional advantage of coordinated practice with real equipment and accessories.",
keywords = "computer simulator, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), ERCP mechanical simulator, simulation training",
author = "Joseph Leung and Brian Lim and Catherine Ngo and Lao, {Wai Cheung} and Wing, {Luk Yiu} and Ivan Hung and Michael Li and Leung, {Felix W.}",
year = "2012",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1111/j.1443-1661.2011.01209.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "175--181",
journal = "Digestive Endoscopy",
issn = "0915-5635",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Head-to-head comparison of practice with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography computer and mechanical simulators by experienced endoscopists and trainees

AU - Leung, Joseph

AU - Lim, Brian

AU - Ngo, Catherine

AU - Lao, Wai Cheung

AU - Wing, Luk Yiu

AU - Hung, Ivan

AU - Li, Michael

AU - Leung, Felix W.

PY - 2012/5

Y1 - 2012/5

N2 - Background and Aim: The endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) mechanical simulator (EMS) and computer simulator (ECS) are described herein. No direct hands-on comparison has been reported to reflect the perception of trainers and trainees regarding the efficacy of each model for trainee ERCP education. We compared the trainers' and trainees' assessments of the EMS and ECS for trainee education. Methods: Eighteen gastrointestinal trainees and 16 trainers with varying ERCP experience completed a questionnaire survey before and after practice with each simulator at hands-on ERCP practice workshops. They carried out scope insertion, selective bile duct cannulation, guidewire negotiation of a bile duct stricture, biliary papillotomy and insertion of a single biliary stent using both simulators. Main outcome measurement was respondents' assessments of comparative efficacy of EMS and ECS practice for trainee education. Results: Compared to pre-practice evaluation, both EMS and ECS received higher scores after hands-on practice. Both trainers and trainees showed significantly greater increases in scores for EMS when compared with ECS in facilitating understanding of ERCP procedure, enhancing confidence in carrying out ERCP and the simulator as a credible option for supplementing clinical ERCP training (P < 0.05). Participants also scored EMS significantly higher in realism and usefulness as an instructional tool. Conclusions: Both computer and mechanical simulators are accepted modalities for ERCP training. The current data (based on a head-to-head comparison of hands-on practice experience) indicate EMS practice is rated higher than ECS practice in supplementing clinical ERCP training. EMS offers the additional advantage of coordinated practice with real equipment and accessories.

AB - Background and Aim: The endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) mechanical simulator (EMS) and computer simulator (ECS) are described herein. No direct hands-on comparison has been reported to reflect the perception of trainers and trainees regarding the efficacy of each model for trainee ERCP education. We compared the trainers' and trainees' assessments of the EMS and ECS for trainee education. Methods: Eighteen gastrointestinal trainees and 16 trainers with varying ERCP experience completed a questionnaire survey before and after practice with each simulator at hands-on ERCP practice workshops. They carried out scope insertion, selective bile duct cannulation, guidewire negotiation of a bile duct stricture, biliary papillotomy and insertion of a single biliary stent using both simulators. Main outcome measurement was respondents' assessments of comparative efficacy of EMS and ECS practice for trainee education. Results: Compared to pre-practice evaluation, both EMS and ECS received higher scores after hands-on practice. Both trainers and trainees showed significantly greater increases in scores for EMS when compared with ECS in facilitating understanding of ERCP procedure, enhancing confidence in carrying out ERCP and the simulator as a credible option for supplementing clinical ERCP training (P < 0.05). Participants also scored EMS significantly higher in realism and usefulness as an instructional tool. Conclusions: Both computer and mechanical simulators are accepted modalities for ERCP training. The current data (based on a head-to-head comparison of hands-on practice experience) indicate EMS practice is rated higher than ECS practice in supplementing clinical ERCP training. EMS offers the additional advantage of coordinated practice with real equipment and accessories.

KW - computer simulator

KW - endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)

KW - ERCP mechanical simulator

KW - simulation training

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84860603784&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84860603784&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2011.01209.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2011.01209.x

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 175

EP - 181

JO - Digestive Endoscopy

JF - Digestive Endoscopy

SN - 0915-5635

IS - 3

ER -