Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adaptation of the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery box for endoscopic simulation: performance evaluation of the first 100 participants

  • 2018 SAGES Oral
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The paucity of readily accessible, cost-effective models for the simulation, practice, and evaluation of endoscopic skills present an ongoing barrier for resident training. We have previously described a system for conversion of the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery box (FLS) for flexible endoscopic simulation. Six endoscopic tasks focusing on scope manipulation, and other clinically relevant endoscopic skills are performed within a 5-min time limit per task. This study describes our experience and validation results with the first 100 participants.

Methods

A total of 100 participants were evaluated on the simulator. Thirty individuals were classified as experts (having done over 200 endoscopic procedures), and 70 were classified as trainees (39 individuals reported having no prior endoscopy experience). Of the 100 participants, 55 individuals were retested on the simulator within a period of 4 months. These 55 individuals were also evaluated using the “Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills” (GAGES). T-tests and Pearson correlations were used where appropriate, values less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Experts completed all six tasks significantly faster than trainees. For the 55 participants who were retested on the simulator, all tasks demonstrated evidence of test–retest reliability for both experts and trainees who did not practice in between tests. Moderate correlations between lower completion times and higher GAGES scores were observed for all tasks except the clipping task.

Conclusions

The results from the first 100 participants provide evidence for the simulator’s validity. Based on task completion times, we found that experts perform significantly better than trainees. Additionally, preliminary data demonstrate evidence of test–retest reliability, as well as GAGES score correlation. Additional studies to determine and validate a scoring system for this simulator are ongoing.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Crespin OM, Okrainec A, Kwong AV, Habaz I, Jimenez MC, Szasz P, Weiss E, Gonzalez CG, Mosko JD, Liu LW, Swanstrom LL, Shlomovitz E (2018) Feasibility of adapting the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery trainer box to endoscopic skills training tool. Surg Endosc 32(6):2968–2983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Thompson CC, Jirapinyo P, Kumar N, Ou A, Camacho A, Lengyel B, Ryan MB (2014) Development and initial validation of an endoscopic part-task training box. Endoscopy 46:735–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Vassilou MC, Kaneva PA, Poulose BK, Dunkin BJ, Marks JM, Sadik R, Sroka G, Anvari M, Thaler K, Adrales GL, Hazey JW, Lightdale JR, Velanovich V, Swanstrom LL, Mellinger JD, Fried GM (2010) Global assessment of gastrointestinal endoscopic skills (GAGES): a valid measurement tool for technical skills in flexible endoscopy. Surg Endosc 24(8):1834–1841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Patel NM, Terlizzi JP, Trooskin SZ (2014) Gastrointestinal endoscopy training in general surgery residency: what has changed since 2009? J Surg Educ 71(6):846–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Sickle KR, Buck L, Willis R, Mangram A, Truitt MS, Shabahang M, Thomas S, Trombetta L, Dunkin B, Scott D (2011) A multicenter, simulation-based skills training collaborative using shared GI Mentor II systems: results from the Texas Association of Surgical Skills Laboratories flexible endoscopy curriculum. Surg Endosc 25(9):2980–2986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Koch AD, Buzink SN, Heemskerk J, Botden SM, Veenendaal R, Jakimowicz JJ, Schoon EJ (2008) Expert and construct validity of the Simbionix GI Mentor II endoscopy simulator for colonoscopy. Surg Endosc 22(1):158–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hashimoto DA, Petrusa E, Phitayakorn R, Valle C, Casey B, Gee D (2018) A proficiency-based virtual reality endoscopy curriculum improves performance on the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery examination. Surg Endosc 32(3):1397–1404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ritter EM, Taylor ZA, Wolf KR, Franklin BR, Placek SB, Korndorffer JR, Gardner AK (2018) Simulation-based mastery learning for endoscopy using the endoscopy training system: a strategy to improve endoscopic skills and prepare for the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) manual skills exam. Surg Endosc 32(1):413–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jirapinyo P, Abidi WM, Aihara H, Zaki T, Tsay C, Imaeda AB, Thompson CC (2017) Preclinical endoscopic training using a part-task simulator: learning curve assessment and determination of threshold score for advancement to clinical endoscopy. Surg Endosc 31(10):4010–4015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jirapinyo P, Kumar N, Thompson CC (2015) Validation of an endoscopic part-task training box as a skill assessment tool. Gastrointest Endosc 81:967–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berger-Richardson D, Kurashima Y, von Renteln D, Kaneva P, Feldman LS, Fried GM, Vassiliou MC (2016) Description and preliminary evaluation of a low-cost simulator for training and evaluation of flexible endoscopic skills. Surg Innov 23(2):183–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eldo FE, Halldorsson A, Griswold JA (2008) Future directions in training surgical residents to perform endoscopic examinations. Am Surgeon 74(2):187–188

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lee SH, Chung IK, Kim SJ, Kim JO, Ko BM, Hwangbo Y, Kim WH, Park DH, Lee SK, Park CH, Baek IH (2008) An adequate level of training for technical competence in screening and diagnostic colonoscopy: a prospective multicenter evaluation of the learning curve. Gastrointest Endosc 67(4):683–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jaime Burke, Caterina Masino, Agnes Gronfier, Anton Svendrovski for their support throughout this study and Thomas Sun for helping make the BEST box. This study was funded by a 2017 SAGES research grant provided to University Health Network/University of Toronto (FC#410007741).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Ilay Habaz, Allan Okrainec, Oscar M. Crespin, Andrea V. Kwong, Ethan Weiss, Timothy D. Jackson & Eran Shlomovitz

  2. Institute for Image Guided Surgery IHU-Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Silvana Perretta, Else van der Velden, Ludovica Guerriero, Fabio Longo, Pietro Mascagni, Lee L. Swanstrom & Eran Shlomovitz

  3. Division of Gastroenterology, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Louis W. C. Liu

  4. Division of GI/MIS, The Oregon Clinic, Portland, OR, USA

    Lee L. Swanstrom

  5. Division of Interventional Radiology, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Eran Shlomovitz

Authors
  1. Ilay Habaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Silvana Perretta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allan Okrainec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oscar M. Crespin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea V. Kwong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ethan Weiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Else van der Velden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ludovica Guerriero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Fabio Longo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Pietro Mascagni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Louis W. C. Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Timothy D. Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Lee L. Swanstrom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Eran Shlomovitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eran Shlomovitz.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Ilay Habaz, Silvana Perretta, Allan Okrainec, Oscar M Crespin, Andrea V Kwong, Ethan Weiss, Else van der Velden, Ludovica Guerriero, Fabio Longo, Pietro Mascagni, Louis WC Liu, Timothy D Jackson, Lee L Swanstorm, and Eran Shlomovitz have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Habaz, I., Perretta, S., Okrainec, A. et al. Adaptation of the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery box for endoscopic simulation: performance evaluation of the first 100 participants. Surg Endosc 33, 3444–3450 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-06617-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-06617-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation