Complication rates of trainee- versus attending-performed upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Simulator-based training method in gastrointestinal endoscopy training and currently available simulators

The apprenticeship-based training method (ABTM) is highly effective for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic training. However, the conventional ABTM has significant issues. Although many supplementary training methods (TMs) have been developed and utilized, they cannot entirely replace the ABTM, which remains the major TM strategy. Currently, new TM construction is crucial and necessary due to financial constraints, difficulty of obtaining sufficient training time due to patient safety-related regulations, and catastrophic damage caused by disasters such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The simulator-based TM (SBTM) is widely accepted as an alternative to the ABTM, owing to the SBTM's advantages. Since the 1960s, many GI endoscopy training simulators have been developed and numerous studies have been published on their effectiveness. While previous studies have focused on the simulator's validity, this review focused on the accessibility of simulators that were introduced by the end of 2021. Although the current SBTM is effective in GI endoscopic education, extensive improvements are needed to replace the ABTM. Incorporating simulator-incorporated TMs into an improved ABTM is an attempt to overcome the incompleteness of the current SBTM. Until a new simulator is developed to replace the ABTM, it is desirable to operate a simulator-integrated and well-coordinated TM that is suitable for each country and institution.

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Performed by Trainees Is Not Associated with Increased Immediate Adverse Events or Technical Failure Rates

BACKGROUND/AIM

Training endoscopists to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is critical to address the increasing patient population with pancreatobiliary diseases. Concerns remain about ERCP safety and success involving trainees. We compared the technical success and immediate adverse events between ERCP with and without trainee involvement.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 28,271 ERCP procedures in a national sample of the United States over 12 years. Demographics, procedure and fluoroscopy time, visualization and cannulation of main structures, adverse events, and technical success rates were compared between ERCP with and without trainees. Categorical variables were compared using Pearson's chi-square test and continuous variables using a standard t-test. Univariate and multivariate regressions were performed adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, US region, ASA class and clinical setting.

RESULTS

Approximately 49.5% of ERCPs had a trainee involved. The ampulla was visualized in 97.4% with trainee vs. 97.3% without trainee involvement (P = 0.858). The common bile duct was visualized and cannulated in 90.4% with trainees vs. 91.7% without trainees involved (P < 0.001). The ERCP was incomplete in 5.9% of cases with trainees vs. 6.4% without trainees involved (P = 0.207). Trainee participation added 8.7 min to average procedure time (aOR: 1.02, P < 0.001) and 2.0 min to fluoroscopy time (aOR: 1.00, P = 0.796). Adverse events (aOR: 0.89, P = 0.704) and technical success (aOR: 0.83, P = 0.571) were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Trainee involvement leads to increased procedure duration but is not associated with increased immediate adverse events, or technical failure. Our study supports ERCP safety and success with trainee participation.

'Four-position method' makes beginner endoscopists aware of spatial positioning of the left hand to master upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Background and study aims  We developed a novel "four-position method" for facilitating endoscopy of the upper gastrointestinal tract, and this study aimed to verify its usefulness for beginner endoscopists. Methods  Medical students (n = 121) were divided into three groups. A simulator subsequently was used to perform endoscopy. Group A was taught how to hold the endoscope and move the dial; Group B was taught the "four-position method"; and Group C, in addition to being taught the "four-position method," was permitted to use an endoscope before introduction to the simulator. In each group, the transit time to various parts of the upper digestive tract was recorded in addition to the time to grasp a clip in the stomach with the forceps. We also surveyed the groups with respect to their impression of the difficulty level of endoscopic operation before and after instructions. Results  Transit time to the cardia was no different among the groups; however, with regard to other targets, Group C reached the sites significantly more quickly than did Groups A and B. Time to clip grasping was significantly shorter in Groups B and C than in Group A. Regarding the impression of the difficulty level, significantly more students in Groups B and C compared to Group A felt that endoscopy was easier after instructions. Conclusion  Learning the "four-position method" made it possible to achieve stable endoscopic manipulation at an early stage and improve subsequent endoscopic procedures.