File Download
 
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
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleHead-to-head comparison of practice with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography computer and mechanical simulators by experienced endoscopists and trainees
 
AuthorsLeung, J5 1
Lim, B5 1 4
Ngo, C5 1
Lao, WC6
Wing, LY6
Hung, I2
Li, M6
Leung, FW3
 
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
 
CitationDigestive Endoscopy, 2012, v. 24 n. 3, p. 175-181 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1443-1661.2011.01209.x
 
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.
 
ISSN0915-5635
2012 Impact Factor: 1.61
2012 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.791
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1443-1661.2011.01209.x
 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorLeung, J
 
dc.contributor.authorLim, B
 
dc.contributor.authorNgo, C
 
dc.contributor.authorLao, WC
 
dc.contributor.authorWing, LY
 
dc.contributor.authorHung, I
 
dc.contributor.authorLi, M
 
dc.contributor.authorLeung, FW
 
dc.date.accessioned2012-09-05T05:31:57Z
 
dc.date.available2012-09-05T05:31:57Z
 
dc.date.issued2012
 
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.
 
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationDigestive Endoscopy, 2012, v. 24 n. 3, p. 175-181 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1443-1661.2011.01209.x
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1443-1661.2011.01209.x
 
dc.identifier.epage181
 
dc.identifier.hkuros208193
 
dc.identifier.issn0915-5635
2012 Impact Factor: 1.61
2012 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.791
 
dc.identifier.issue3
 
dc.identifier.pmid22507092
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84860603784
 
dc.identifier.spage175
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/163486
 
dc.identifier.volume24
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/DEN
 
dc.publisher.placeAustralia
 
dc.relation.ispartofDigestive Endoscopy
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.subjectComputer Simulator
 
dc.subjectEndoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (Ercp)
 
dc.subjectErcp Mechanical Simulator
 
dc.subjectSimulation Training
 
dc.titleHead-to-head comparison of practice with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography computer and mechanical simulators by experienced endoscopists and trainees
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Leung, J</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lim, B</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Ngo, C</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lao, WC</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Wing, LY</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Hung, I</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Li, M</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Leung, FW</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2012-09-05T05:31:57Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2012-09-05T05:31:57Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2012</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Digestive Endoscopy, 2012, v. 24 n. 3, p. 175-181</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0915-5635</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/163486</identifier.uri>
<description.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&apos; and trainees&apos; 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&apos; 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 &lt; 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. &#169; 2011 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Blackwell Publishing Asia. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/DEN</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Digestive Endoscopy</relation.ispartof>
<subject>Computer Simulator</subject>
<subject>Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (Ercp)</subject>
<subject>Ercp Mechanical Simulator</subject>
<subject>Simulation Training</subject>
<title>Head-to-head comparison of practice with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography computer and mechanical simulators by experienced endoscopists and trainees</title>
<type>Article</type>
<description.nature>Link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1111/j.1443-1661.2011.01209.x</identifier.doi>
<identifier.pmid>22507092</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-84860603784</identifier.scopus>
<identifier.hkuros>208193</identifier.hkuros>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-84860603784&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>24</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>3</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>175</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>181</identifier.epage>
<publisher.place>Australia</publisher.place>
</item>
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