Assessing the Value of Endoscopy Simulator Modules Designed to Prepare Residents for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery Examination

Raphael M. Byrne, Heather E. Hoops, Daniel Herzig, Sarah Diamond, Kim Lu, Karen Brasel, Vassiliki Tsikitis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination is required for all general surgery residents. The test modules are not available for practice before the examination; however, similar modules are commercially available. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine which modules are most valuable for resident training and preparation for the examination by evaluating which correlates best with experience level. DESIGN: This was a single-institution study. SETTING: A virtual reality endoscopy simulator was utilized. PARTICIPANTS: General surgery residents and faculty endoscopists performed endoscopy simulator modules (Endobasket 2, Endobubble 1 and 2, Mucosal Evaluation 2, and Basic Navigation) designed to prepare residents for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination. Residents were assigned into junior and senior groups based on the completion of a dedicated endoscopy rotation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the mean time to completion, mean number of balloons popped, and mean number of wall hits for the 3 groups. RESULTS: A total of 21 junior residents, 11 senior residents, and 3 faculty participated. There were significant differences among groups in the mean time to completion for the Endobasket, Endobubble, and Mucosal Evaluation modules. The modules that correlated best with experience level were Endobubble 2 and Mucosal Evaluation 2. For Endobubble 2, juniors were slower than seniors, who were in turn slower than faculty (junior 118.8 ± 20.55 seconds, senior 100.3 ± 11.78 seconds, faculty 87.67 ± 2.848 seconds; p < 0.01). Juniors popped fewer balloons than seniors, who popped fewer balloons than faculty (junior 9.441 ± 3.838, senior 15.62 ± 4.133, faculty 28.78 ± 1.712; p < 0.001). For Mucosal Evaluation 2, juniors were slower than seniors, who were in turn slower than faculty (junior 468.8 ± 123.5 seconds, senior 368.6 ± 63.42 seconds, faculty 233.1 ± 70.45 seconds; p < 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Study residents have not completed the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examinations, so correlation with examination performance is not yet possible. CONCLUSIONS: Performance on Endobasket, Endobubble, and Mucosal Evaluation correlated well with experience level, providing benchmarks for each level to attain in preparation for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A823.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)211-216
Number of pages6
JournalDiseases of the Colon and Rectum
Volume62
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

Endoscopy
Benchmarking

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

@article{f67d629af6cf480d92a598732a5e0d32,
title = "Assessing the Value of Endoscopy Simulator Modules Designed to Prepare Residents for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery Examination",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination is required for all general surgery residents. The test modules are not available for practice before the examination; however, similar modules are commercially available. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine which modules are most valuable for resident training and preparation for the examination by evaluating which correlates best with experience level. DESIGN: This was a single-institution study. SETTING: A virtual reality endoscopy simulator was utilized. PARTICIPANTS: General surgery residents and faculty endoscopists performed endoscopy simulator modules (Endobasket 2, Endobubble 1 and 2, Mucosal Evaluation 2, and Basic Navigation) designed to prepare residents for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination. Residents were assigned into junior and senior groups based on the completion of a dedicated endoscopy rotation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the mean time to completion, mean number of balloons popped, and mean number of wall hits for the 3 groups. RESULTS: A total of 21 junior residents, 11 senior residents, and 3 faculty participated. There were significant differences among groups in the mean time to completion for the Endobasket, Endobubble, and Mucosal Evaluation modules. The modules that correlated best with experience level were Endobubble 2 and Mucosal Evaluation 2. For Endobubble 2, juniors were slower than seniors, who were in turn slower than faculty (junior 118.8 ± 20.55 seconds, senior 100.3 ± 11.78 seconds, faculty 87.67 ± 2.848 seconds; p < 0.01). Juniors popped fewer balloons than seniors, who popped fewer balloons than faculty (junior 9.441 ± 3.838, senior 15.62 ± 4.133, faculty 28.78 ± 1.712; p < 0.001). For Mucosal Evaluation 2, juniors were slower than seniors, who were in turn slower than faculty (junior 468.8 ± 123.5 seconds, senior 368.6 ± 63.42 seconds, faculty 233.1 ± 70.45 seconds; p < 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Study residents have not completed the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examinations, so correlation with examination performance is not yet possible. CONCLUSIONS: Performance on Endobasket, Endobubble, and Mucosal Evaluation correlated well with experience level, providing benchmarks for each level to attain in preparation for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A823.",
author = "Byrne, {Raphael M.} and Hoops, {Heather E.} and Daniel Herzig and Sarah Diamond and Kim Lu and Karen Brasel and Vassiliki Tsikitis",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/DCR.0000000000001291",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
pages = "211--216",
journal = "Diseases of the Colon and Rectum",
issn = "0012-3706",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the Value of Endoscopy Simulator Modules Designed to Prepare Residents for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery Examination

AU - Byrne, Raphael M.

AU - Hoops, Heather E.

AU - Herzig, Daniel

AU - Diamond, Sarah

AU - Lu, Kim

AU - Brasel, Karen

AU - Tsikitis, Vassiliki

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination is required for all general surgery residents. The test modules are not available for practice before the examination; however, similar modules are commercially available. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine which modules are most valuable for resident training and preparation for the examination by evaluating which correlates best with experience level. DESIGN: This was a single-institution study. SETTING: A virtual reality endoscopy simulator was utilized. PARTICIPANTS: General surgery residents and faculty endoscopists performed endoscopy simulator modules (Endobasket 2, Endobubble 1 and 2, Mucosal Evaluation 2, and Basic Navigation) designed to prepare residents for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination. Residents were assigned into junior and senior groups based on the completion of a dedicated endoscopy rotation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the mean time to completion, mean number of balloons popped, and mean number of wall hits for the 3 groups. RESULTS: A total of 21 junior residents, 11 senior residents, and 3 faculty participated. There were significant differences among groups in the mean time to completion for the Endobasket, Endobubble, and Mucosal Evaluation modules. The modules that correlated best with experience level were Endobubble 2 and Mucosal Evaluation 2. For Endobubble 2, juniors were slower than seniors, who were in turn slower than faculty (junior 118.8 ± 20.55 seconds, senior 100.3 ± 11.78 seconds, faculty 87.67 ± 2.848 seconds; p < 0.01). Juniors popped fewer balloons than seniors, who popped fewer balloons than faculty (junior 9.441 ± 3.838, senior 15.62 ± 4.133, faculty 28.78 ± 1.712; p < 0.001). For Mucosal Evaluation 2, juniors were slower than seniors, who were in turn slower than faculty (junior 468.8 ± 123.5 seconds, senior 368.6 ± 63.42 seconds, faculty 233.1 ± 70.45 seconds; p < 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Study residents have not completed the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examinations, so correlation with examination performance is not yet possible. CONCLUSIONS: Performance on Endobasket, Endobubble, and Mucosal Evaluation correlated well with experience level, providing benchmarks for each level to attain in preparation for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A823.

AB - BACKGROUND: The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination is required for all general surgery residents. The test modules are not available for practice before the examination; however, similar modules are commercially available. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine which modules are most valuable for resident training and preparation for the examination by evaluating which correlates best with experience level. DESIGN: This was a single-institution study. SETTING: A virtual reality endoscopy simulator was utilized. PARTICIPANTS: General surgery residents and faculty endoscopists performed endoscopy simulator modules (Endobasket 2, Endobubble 1 and 2, Mucosal Evaluation 2, and Basic Navigation) designed to prepare residents for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination. Residents were assigned into junior and senior groups based on the completion of a dedicated endoscopy rotation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the mean time to completion, mean number of balloons popped, and mean number of wall hits for the 3 groups. RESULTS: A total of 21 junior residents, 11 senior residents, and 3 faculty participated. There were significant differences among groups in the mean time to completion for the Endobasket, Endobubble, and Mucosal Evaluation modules. The modules that correlated best with experience level were Endobubble 2 and Mucosal Evaluation 2. For Endobubble 2, juniors were slower than seniors, who were in turn slower than faculty (junior 118.8 ± 20.55 seconds, senior 100.3 ± 11.78 seconds, faculty 87.67 ± 2.848 seconds; p < 0.01). Juniors popped fewer balloons than seniors, who popped fewer balloons than faculty (junior 9.441 ± 3.838, senior 15.62 ± 4.133, faculty 28.78 ± 1.712; p < 0.001). For Mucosal Evaluation 2, juniors were slower than seniors, who were in turn slower than faculty (junior 468.8 ± 123.5 seconds, senior 368.6 ± 63.42 seconds, faculty 233.1 ± 70.45 seconds; p < 0.01). LIMITATIONS: Study residents have not completed the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examinations, so correlation with examination performance is not yet possible. CONCLUSIONS: Performance on Endobasket, Endobubble, and Mucosal Evaluation correlated well with experience level, providing benchmarks for each level to attain in preparation for the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery examination. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A823.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060007104&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060007104&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001291

DO - 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001291

M3 - Article

VL - 62

SP - 211

EP - 216

JO - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

JF - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

SN - 0012-3706

IS - 2

ER -