Does Simulator Training in Colonoscopy Reduce Procedure-Related Complications?

Low-cost Colonoscopic Simulator and Colonoscope to Train Basic Skills in Colonoscopy during Undergraduate Studies

Objective To develop a low-cost simulator model and a colonoscope with materials that are easily accessible to offer training on colonoscopy skills during undergraduate studies. Since this is the procedure of choice for colorectal cancer screening, the general practitioner must be able to recognize its main indications, preparation, and complications.

Methods Using materials such as a mannequin, a vehicle inspection camera, a conduit, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, acrylic, wood, and red paint, we built a simulator and a 150-cm long and 20-to-25-mm thick colonoscope. The colonoscope's handle and handhold were made of acrylic, the colonoscope's mobile end was made with articulated PVC rings, and the up and down movements were performed according to the traction of the steel cables. The camera attached to its distal end enables connection to a smartphone to view the image. In the simulator, the conduit was inserted into the mannequin to simulate the curvatures of the colon. Red spray paint was used to simulate the staining of the colonic mucosa in the inner region of the mannequin and the adventitial layer in the outer region.

Results We were able to build a simulator and a colonoscope with a total amount of R$ 182.82 (roughly US$ 36.50). Both were tested and proved to be useful in the acquisition of psychomotor and cognitive skills in colonoscopy.

Conclusion The simulator and colonoscope developed by us are cost-effective, useful in the acquisition of psychomotor and cognitive skills in colonoscopy, and can facilitate the structuring of a training program for undergraduate students.

The effect of virtual endoscopy simulator training on novices: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Advances in virtual endoscopy simulators have paralleled an interest in medical simulation for gastrointestinal endoscopy training.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to determine whether the virtual endoscopy simulator training could improve the performance of novices.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

SETTING

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared virtual endoscopy simulator training with bedside teaching or any other intervention for novices were collected.

PATIENTS

Novice endoscopists.

INTERVENTIONS

The PRISMA statement was followed during the course of the research. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect were searched (up to July 2013). Data extraction and assessment were independently performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Independent procedure completion, total procedure time and required assistance.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (n = 354) were eligible for inclusion: 9 studies designed for colonoscopy training, 6 for gastroscopy training. For gastroscopy training, procedure completed independently was reported in 87.7% of participants in simulator training group compared to 70.0% of participants in control group (1 study; 22 participants; RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.13-1.39; P<0.0001). For colonoscopy training, procedure completed independently was reported in 89.3% of participants in simulator training group compared to 88.9% of participants in control group (7 study; 163 participants; RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.88-1.37; P = 0.41; I(2) = 85%).

LIMITATIONS

The included studies are quite in-homogeneous with respect to training schedule and procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual endoscopy simulator training might be effective for gastroscopy, but so far no data is available to support this for colonoscopy.

Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, training in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been based upon an apprenticeship model, with novice endoscopists learning basic skills under the supervision of experienced preceptors in the clinical setting. Over the last two decades, however, the growing awareness of the need for patient safety has brought the issue of simulation-based training to the forefront. While the use of simulation-based training may have important educational and societal advantages, the effectiveness of virtual reality gastrointestinal endoscopy simulators has yet to be clearly demonstrated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether virtual reality simulation training can supplement and/or replace early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) in diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy and/or sigmoidoscopy for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience.

SEARCH METHODS

Health professions, educational and computer databases were searched until November 2011 including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Biosis Previews, CINAHL, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, ERIC, Education Full Text, CBCA Education, Career and Technical Education @ Scholars Portal, Education Abstracts @ Scholars Portal, Expanded Academic ASAP @ Scholars Portal, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Abstracts in New Technologies and Engineering and Computer & Information Systems Abstracts. The grey literature until November 2011 was also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing virtual reality endoscopy (oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy) simulation training versus any other method of endoscopy training including conventional patient-based training, in-job training, training using another form of endoscopy simulation (e.g. low-fidelity simulator), or no training (however defined by authors) were included.  Trials comparing one method of virtual reality training versus another method of virtual reality training (e.g. comparison of two different virtual reality simulators) were also included. Only trials measuring outcomes on humans in the clinical setting (as opposed to animals or simulators) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (CMS, MES) independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials, and extracted data on the trial characteristics and outcomes. Due to significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity it was not possible to pool study data in order to perform a meta-analysis. Where data were available for each continuous outcome we calculated standardized mean difference with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis. Where data were available for dichotomous outcomes we calculated relative risk with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials, with 278 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared simulation-based training with conventional patient-based endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) whereas nine trials compared simulation-based training with no training. Only three trials were at low risk of bias. Simulation-based training, as compared with no training, generally appears to provide participants with some advantage over their untrained peers as measured by composite score of competency, independent procedure completion, performance time, independent insertion depth, overall rating of performance or competency error rate and mucosal visualization. Alternatively, there was no conclusive evidence that simulation-based training was superior to conventional patient-based training, although data were limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review indicate that virtual reality endoscopy training can be used to effectively supplement early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) in diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy and/or sigmoidoscopy for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. However, there remains insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of virtual reality simulation-based training as a replacement for early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. There is a great need for the development of a reliable and valid measure of endoscopic performance prior to the completion of further randomised clinical trials with high methodological quality.