File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

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

TitleHead-to-head comparison of practice with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography computer and mechanical simulators by experienced endoscopists and trainees
Authors
KeywordsComputer Simulator
Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (Ercp)
Ercp Mechanical Simulator
Simulation Training
Issue Date2012
PublisherBlackwell Publishing Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/DEN
Citation
Digestive Endoscopy, 2012, v. 24 n. 3, p. 175-181 How to Cite?
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. © 2011 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/163486
ISSN
2013 Impact Factor: 1.989
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

Author Affiliations
  1. UC Davis Medical Center
  2. The University of Hong Kong
  3. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA
  4. Kaiser Permanente
  5. null
  6. Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLeung, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorLim, Ben_US
dc.contributor.authorNgo, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorLao, WCen_US
dc.contributor.authorWing, LYen_US
dc.contributor.authorHung, Ien_US
dc.contributor.authorLi, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorLeung, FWen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-09-05T05:31:57Z-
dc.date.available2012-09-05T05:31:57Z-
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.identifier.citationDigestive Endoscopy, 2012, v. 24 n. 3, p. 175-181en_US
dc.identifier.issn0915-5635en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/163486-
dc.description.abstractBackground 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. © 2011 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/DENen_US
dc.relation.ispartofDigestive Endoscopyen_US
dc.subjectComputer Simulatoren_US
dc.subjectEndoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (Ercp)en_US
dc.subjectErcp Mechanical Simulatoren_US
dc.subjectSimulation Trainingen_US
dc.titleHead-to-head comparison of practice with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography computer and mechanical simulators by experienced endoscopists and traineesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailHung, I:ivanhung@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityHung, I=rp00508en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1443-1661.2011.01209.xen_US
dc.identifier.pmid22507092-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84860603784en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros208193-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-84860603784&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume24en_US
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.spage175en_US
dc.identifier.epage181en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000302907600007-
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLeung, J=7202180292en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLim, B=7201984034en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridNgo, C=54391445300en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLao, WC=7004183908en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWing, LY=54391948900en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHung, I=7006103457en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLi, M=54391229100en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLeung, FW=7103078612en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats