Virtual reality colonoscopy simulation: a compulsory practice for the future colonoscopist? Effect of virtual endoscopy simulator training on performance of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients: a randomized controlled trial. A prospective randomized trial comparing a virtual reality simulator to bedside teaching for training in sigmoidoscopy. Prospective randomized study on the use of a computer-based endoscopic simulator for training in esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Randomized controlled trial of virtual reality simulator training: transfer to live patients. Virtual reality training in laparoscopic surgery: a preliminary assessment of minimally invasive surgical trainer virtual reality (MIST VR). Training with a computer-based simulator achieves basic manual skills required for upper endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Virtual reality flexible sigmoidoscopy simulator training: impact on resident performance. Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of virtual-reality simulator training in acquisition of competency in colonoscopy. Transfer validity of laparoscopic knot-tying training on a VR simulator to a realistic environment: a randomized controlled trial. Does training in a virtual reality simulator improve surgical performance? Computer simulation training enhances patient comfort during endoscopy. Computer simulator training enhances the competency of gastroenterology fellows at colonoscopy: results of a pilot study.
As for any manual procedure, the learning curves for medical interventions can have undesirable phases, occurring mostly in the early experience of applying a technique. There have been impressive advances in endoscopic procedures during recent years, and there is an emerging trend that the number of procedures is increasing in parallel with these. In addition, the introduction of screening programs for colorectal cancer will also increase the numbers of procedures needed. Recent developments in medical simulation seem promising with regard to the possibility of "training out" undesirable parts of the learning curve outside the operating room. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of the AccuTouch flexible endoscopy simulator improves the early part of the learning curve in colonoscopy training.
                12 endoscopy trainees, 10 surgeons and two medical gastroenterologists, all with experience in gastroscopy but with no specific colonoscopy experience, were randomly assigned to either simulator training or to a control group. They all received the same theoretical study package and the training group practiced with the AccuTouch colonoscopy simulator until a predefined expert level of performance was reached. All trainees performed their first ten individual colonoscopies described in detail in a separate protocol.
                Trainees in the simulator-trained group performed significantly better (P=0.0011) and managed to reach the cecum in 52% of their cases (vs. 19% in the control group), and were 4.53 times more likely to succeed compared with the controls. Additionally, there was a significantly shorter procedure time and less patient discomfort in the hands of the simulator-trained group.
                Skills acquired using the AccuTouch simulator transfer well into the clinical colonoscopy environment. The results of this trial clearly support the plan to integrate simulator training into endoscopic education curricula. Skills in gastrointestinal endoscopy mainly depend on experience and practice. Patients upon whom trainees perform their first endoscopic examinations are likely to suffer more discomfort and prolonged procedures. Training on endoscopy simulators may reduce the time required to reach competency in patient endoscopy.
                Residents in internal medicine without experience of endoscopy were randomized to a group who trained on a simulator before conventional training (group S) or one that received conventional training only (group C) before starting upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients. After endoscopy, discomfort and pain were evaluated by patients, who were blind to the beginners' training status. Results in terms of time, technique (intubation, pyloric passage, J-maneuver), and diagnosis of pathological entities were evaluated by experts.
                From 2003 to 2007, 28 residents were enrolled. Comparing group S with group C in their first ten endoscopic examinations in patients, time taken to reach the duodenum (239 seconds (range 50 - 620) vs. 310 seconds (110 - 720; P < 0.0001) and technical accuracy ( P < 0.02) were significantly better in group S. Diagnostic accuracy did not differ between the groups. Fourteen residents (7 simulator-trained, 7 not simulator-trained) continued endoscopy training. After 60 endoscopic examinations, investigation time was still shorter in group S. Technical and diagnostic accuracy improved during on-patient training in both groups; here differences between groups were no longer observable. There were no significant differences in discomfort and pain scores between the groups after 10 and after 60 endoscopies. Discomfort and pain were higher than for endoscopy performed by experts.
                This randomized controlled trial shows that virtual simulator training significantly affects technical accuracy in the early and mid-term stages of endoscopic training. It helps reduce the time needed to reach technical competency, but clinically the effect is limited. Simulator training could be useful in an endoscopy training curriculum but cannot replace on-patient training.
                © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York. Clinical investigation using endoscopy simulators is now possible due to recent advances in virtual reality technology. A prospective randomized trial was conducted to compare the exclusive use of a virtual reality endoscopy simulator with bedside teaching for training in sigmoidoscopy.
                Internal medicine residents were randomly assigned to training exclusively using a virtual reality simulator (group 1) or via bedside teaching (group 2). Residents were then observed performing five sigmoidoscopic procedures in asymptomatic patients referred for colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopic examinations were evaluated for procedure duration, completion, ability to perform retroflexion, and level of patient comfort/discomfort. Each examination was scored from 1 (inability to insert the endoscope beyond the rectum) to 5 (able to complete the entire examination independently in less than 20 min).
                Sixty-six sigmoidoscopic examinations were completed by nine residents in group 1 (simulator-trained group) and seven residents in group 2 (traditional teaching group). Participants in group 1 had more difficulty with initial endoscope insertion and negotiation of the rectosigmoid junction (mean score +/- SEM 2.9 +/- 0.2) than those in group 2 (3.8 +/- 0.2) ( P < 0.001). The splenic flexure was reached independently in 10 of 34 examinations (29 %) in group 1, compared with 23 of 32 examinations (72 %) in group 2 ( P = 0.001). Retroflexion was successfully performed by 19 of 34 (56 %) in group 1 compared to 27 of 32 (84 %) in group 2 ( P = 0.02). The average procedure time, patient satisfaction, and discomfort associated with the procedure did not differ statistically between the two groups.
                The use of a state-of-the-art virtual reality-based endoscopy simulator is inferior to traditional bedside teaching techniques when used exclusively for training medical residents to perform sigmoidoscopy. Computer-based endoscopic simulators have been developed in recent years, and their usefulness has been reported. However, there is no blinded prospective randomized controlled study on esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) training using virtual reality simulators. The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a computer-based simulator for basic training in EGD.
                The GI-Mentor II simulator was used. The subjects were 20 hospital medical residents. After receiving an explanation regarding the fundamentals of endoscopy, 10 trainees were each randomized into a simulator group and a non-simulator group. The simulator group received 5 h of training with the GI-Mentor II plus bedside training, while the non-simulator group received bedside training. Subsequently, each subject performed endoscopy twice for assessment. Performance was evaluated according to a five-grade scale for a total of 11 items.
                The score was significantly higher in the skills required for insertion into the esophagus, passing from the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) to the antrum, passing through the pylorus, and examination of the duodenal bulb and the fornix.
                The performance of endoscopy was improved by 5 h of simulator training. The simulator was more effective with regard to the items related to manipulation skills. Computer-based simulator training in EGD is useful for beginners. New Residency Review Committee requirements in general surgery require 50 colonoscopies. Simulators have been widely suggested to help prepare residents for live clinical experience. We assessed a computer-based colonoscopy simulator for effective transfer of skills to live patients.
                A randomized controlled trial included general surgery and internal medicine residents with limited endoscopic experience. Following a pretest, the treatment group (n = 12) practiced on the simulator, while controls (n = 12) received no additional training. Both groups then performed a colonoscopy on a live patient. Technical ability was evaluated by expert endoscopists using previously validated assessment instruments.
                In the live patient setting, the treatment group scored significantly higher global ratings than controls (t(22) = 1.84, P = .04). Only 2 of the 8 computer-based performance metrics correlated significantly with previously validated global ratings of performance.
                Residents trained on a colonoscopy simulator prior to their first patient-based colonoscopy performed significantly better in the clinical setting than controls, demonstrating skill transfer to live patients. The simulator's performance metrics showed limited concurrent validity, suggesting the need for further refinement. The "fulcrum effect" of the body wall on surgical instrument manipulation is a major hurdle for novice endoscopic surgeons. Virtual reality training has not previously been evaluated as a means to overcome this problem.
                16 participants with no experience of endoscopy were required to make multiple defined incisions under laparoscopic laboratory conditions within 2-minute periods. Half of the subjects were randomized to receive initial training on the Minimally Invasive Surgical Trainer, Virtual Reality (MIST VR) computer programme.
                Participants with MIST VR training made significantly more correct incisions (P = 0.0001) than the control group on test trial 1, and even after extended practice by both groups (P = 0.0001). They were also significantly more likely to actively use both hands to perform the endoscopic evaluation task (P = 0.01).
                Virtual reality training represents a potential, viable solution for junior endoscopists, for overcoming the "fulcrum effect", in a replicable, safe learning environment which allows objective and reliable quantification of skill levels by trainers. Changes in medical practice have constrained the time available for education and the availability of patients for training. Computer-based simulators have been devised that can be used to achieve manual skills without patient contact. This study prospectively compared, in a clinical setting, the efficacy of a computer-based simulator for training in upper endoscopy.
                Twenty-two fellows with no experience in endoscopy were randomly assigned to two groups: one group underwent 10 hours of preclinical training with a computer-based simulator, and the other did not. Each trainee performed upper endoscopy in 19 or 20 patients. Performance parameters evaluated included the following: esophageal intubation, procedure duration and completeness, and request for assistance. The performance of the trainees also was evaluated by the endoscopy instructor.
                A total of 420 upper endoscopies were performed; the computer pretrained group performed 212 and the non-pretrained group, 208. The pretrained group performed more complete procedures (87.8% vs. 70.0%; p < 0.0001), required less assistance (41.3% vs. 97.9%; p < 0.0001), and the instructor assessed performance as "positive" more often for this group (86.8% vs. 56.7%; p < 0.0001). The length of procedures was comparable for the two groups.
                The computer-based simulator is effective in providing novice trainees with the skills needed for identification of anatomical landmarks and basic endoscopic maneuvers, and in reducing the need for assistance by instructors. Flexible sigmoidoscopy, a core skill for the primary care physician, requires learned hand-eye skills that can be difficult to master during residency training. With recent advances in virtual reality simulation technology, simulated flexible sigmoidoscopes are available to family medicine residents for training before their initial and subsequent live patient examinations. The purpose of the study was to determine whether a virtual reality flexible sigmoidoscope simulator would improve the hand-eye skills and various performance parameters in a live patient.
                Residents were assigned to a control (n = 5) or experimental group (n = 5) in which the experimental group trained on a virtual reality sigmoidoscopy simulator before their first sigmoidoscopies on live patient volunteers. After the initial live patient sigmoidoscopies, both control and experimental groups trained on the simulator so that it was possible to evaluate presimulator and postsimulator training effects on live patient performance and to compare speed and skill between the groups at different levels of training.
                Training on the virtual reality simulator produced substantial improvements in examination times and hand-eye skill measures. After 6 to 10 hours of training on the simulator, the experimental group achieved significantly faster insertion times to 30 cm (119 versus 357 sec, P = 0.03), 40 cm (211 versus 518 sec, P = 0.03), and a shorter mean length of examination (323 versus 654 sec, P = 0.01). There was also significant improvement of hand-eye skill measures of the experimental group in directional errors (1.6 versus. 8.6, P < 0.01), percentage of colon visualized (79 versus 45 percent, P = 0.02), and viewing quality of examination when compared with the control group's initial performance on live patients. Resident survey findings after the study confirmed the trainee's perception of the benefit of the simulator training.
                This study shows the value of virtual reality simulator training for accelerating the development of the hand-eye skills to perform adequate sigmoidoscopy. The GI Mentor is a virtual reality simulator that uses force feedback technology to create a realistic training experience.
                To define the benefit of training on the GI Mentor on competency acquisition in colonoscopy.
                Randomized, controlled, blinded, multicenter trial.
                Academic medical centers with accredited gastroenterology training programs.
                First-year GI fellows.
                Subjects were randomized to receive 10 hours of unsupervised training on the GI Mentor or no simulator experience during the first 8 weeks of fellowship. After this period, both groups began performing real colonoscopies. The first 200 colonoscopies performed by each fellow were graded by proctors to measure technical and cognitive success, and patient comfort level during the procedure.
                A mixed-effects model comparison between the 2 groups of objective and subjective competency scores and patient discomfort in the performance of real colonoscopies over time.
                Forty-five fellows were randomized from 16 hospitals over 2 years. Fellows in the simulator group had significantly higher objective competency rates during the first 100 cases. A mixed-effects model demonstrated a higher objective competence overall in the simulator group (P < .0001), with the difference between groups being significantly greater during the first 80 cases performed. The median number of cases needed to reach 90% competency was 160 in both groups. The patient comfort level was similar.
                Fellows who underwent GI Mentor training performed significantly better during the early phase of real colonoscopy training. Laparoscopic suturing is one of the most difficult tasks in endoscopic surgery, requiring extensive training. The aim of this study was to determine the transfer validity of knot-tying training on a virtual-reality (VR) simulator to a realistic laparoscopic environment.
                Twenty surgical trainees underwent basic eye-hand coordination training on a VR simulator (SIMENDO, DelltaTech, Delft, The Netherlands) until predefined performance criteria were met. Then, they were randomized into two groups. Group A (the experimental group) received additional training with the knot-tying module on the simulator, during which they had to tie a double laparoscopic knot ten times. Group B (controls) did not receive additional manual training. Within a week the participants tied a double knot in the abdominal cavity of an anaesthetized porcine model. Their performance was captured on digital video and coded. Objective analysis parameters were: time taken to tie the knot and number of predefined errors made. Subjective assessments were also made by two laparoscopic surgeons using a global rating list with a five-point Likert scale.
                Trainees in group A (n = 9) were significantly faster than the controls (n = 10), with a median of 262 versus 374 seconds (p = 0.034). Group A made a significantly lower number of errors than the controls (median of 24 versus 36 errors, p = 0.030). Subjective assessments by the laparoscopic experts did not show any significant differences in economy of movement and erroneous behavior between the two groups.
                Surgical trainees who received knot-tying training on the VR simulator were faster and made fewer errors than the controls. The VR module is a useful tool to train laparoscopic knot-tying. Opportunities arose to improve simulator-based instruction that might enhance future training. The development of computerized surgical simulators in a virtual reality environment demands models for proper validation. Recent investigations have shown that a virtual reality simulator (MIST-VR) is a reliable tool for the assessment of laparoscopic psychomotor skills and that it improves the automation of the so-called fulcrum effect. Therefore, we set out to determine whether training with the MIST-VR would improve the surgical performance of surgically inexperienced medical students and to see if results obtained in the simulator would correlate with surgical performance.
                A total of 29 medical students were randomized into two groups. One group received preoperative MIST-VR training. Both groups then performed a simulated laparoscopic appendectomy in a pig. The operations were videotaped and examined by three independent observers.
                There was no significant difference in performance between the two groups. The performance with the MIST-VR correlated with the results in surgery.
                A method that can measure surgical skill, based on the scoring of independent observers who view videotaped performances, seems to be reliable. MIST-VR did not improve the surgical skills of the subjects, but the results with MIST-VR did predict surgical outcome. Computer-based endoscopy simulator (CBES) training's impact on patient-based outcomes has never been examined. This study examines whether the endoscopy skills of trainees are improved and patient discomfort is reduced as a result of CBES training.
                From July 2001-June 2002, 38 residents received either 1 week of patient-based training (PBT) alone in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) or 3 hours of simulator-based training (SBT) before a week of training in FS. Patients completed questionnaires grading the discomfort experienced during endoscopy (1, no pain; 10, worst pain of life). In addition, residents' performance was graded by the supervising staff and themselves with 8 performance parameters by using a 1-10 Likert scale (1, strongly agree; 5, neutral; 10, strongly disagree).
                Nineteen SBT and 19 PBT residents performed 150 and 175 FS, respectively. During this same period, staff completed 585 FS. The median patient discomfort score for SBT residents was significantly less than for PBT residents, 3 (25%-75% interquartile range [IQR], 2-5) vs. 4 (IQR, 2-6) (P < 0.01). Discomfort scores for both resident groups were significantly greater than those recorded by staff endoscopists, 2 (IQR, 1-4) (P < 0.01). No difference was seen in the residents' procedural skill scores. Resident self-evaluation scores were significantly greater than those received from the supervising staff.
                Increased patient comfort resulted from simulation training, demonstrating that CBES training has a direct benefit to the patient. Although no measurable impact on residents' performance skills was observed, we do demonstrate that residents perceive themselves as having acquired greater endoscopic skills in contrast to staff evaluations. Computer-based colonoscopy simulation (CBCS) is being utilized in endoscopy training without supporting evidence that it improves patient-based colonoscopy performance. The goal of this pilot study was to determine if CBCS training improves gastroenterology (GI) fellows' patient-based colonoscopy skills.
                Competency at colonoscopy among 4 novice GI fellows who completed a 6-h CBCS curriculum was compared with 4 novice fellows who were not CBCS-trained. Measurements of competency were rendered by supervising faculty by recording "insertion time,"depth of unassisted insertion,"independent procedure completion,"ability to identify endoscopic landmarks,"inserts in a safe manner,"adequately visualizes mucosa on withdrawal," and "responds appropriately to patient discomfort" with each colonoscopy.
                Simulator-trained fellows outperformed traditionally trained fellows during their initial 15 colonoscopies in all performance aspects except "insertion time" (pp < 0.05). Simulator-trained fellows inserted the endoscope significantly further and reached the cecum independently nearly twice as often during this early training period. Three parameters ("depth of insertion,"independent completion," and "ability to identify landmarks") demonstrated a continued advantage out to 30 colonoscopies. Beyond 30 procedures, there was no difference in the performance of the two groups.
                In this pilot study, a 6-h CBCS curriculum provides an early training advantage by enhancing competency at the early stages of patient-based colonoscopy. These advantages are negligible after approximately 30 patient-based procedures. CBCS-enhanced training may allow faculty to be more efficient with their colonoscopy practice.
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.