Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are emerging technologies with significant potential in medical education and therapeutic interventions, particularly within gastroenterology. This review aims to explore the current applications of VR and AR in enhancing endoscopy training, procedural skills, and patient comfort, while also identifying their role in non-pharmacological pain management and pre-procedure education.

Extensive research has been conducted on the use of VR and AR in surgical and neurological fields, but their application in gastroenterology is still evolving. VR simulators provide realistic training environments, contributing to improved procedural skills and patient care. Additionally, VR has been shown to reduce patient discomfort and serve as an alternative to sedation during procedures like colonoscopies. AR, specifically in colonoscopies, has demonstrated potential in enhancing polyp detection by overlaying real-time digital information, leading to better diagnostic accuracy. Studies also suggest that VR can improve patient outcomes in functional gastrointestinal disorders and enhance pre-procedure education, increasing patient satisfaction. VR and AR hold significant promise in gastroenterology by advancing both educational and procedural practices. These technologies offer cost-effective, patient-friendly solutions that improve diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes. Continued research is essential to fully realize the benefits of VR and AR in gastroenterology, as these tools become more prevalent in clinical practice.

Rectal examination through proctoscopy or rigid sigmoidoscopy is a common investigation in clinical practice. It is an important diagnostic tool for the workup and management of anorectal pathologies. Performing the examination can be daunting not only for patients but also for junior doctors. There are associated risks with the procedure, such as pain, diagnostic failure, and perforation of the bowel. Simulation-based training is recognised as an important adjunct in clinical education. It allows students and doctors to practice skills and techniques at their own pace in a risk-free environment. These skills can then be transferred to and developed further in clinical practice. There is extensive research published regarding the role of simulation-based training in endoscopy, however, we identified no published study regarding simulation-based training in rigid sigmoidoscopy or proctoscopy. This study aims to establish the initial face, content, and construct validity of a tool-based visual anorectal examination advanced simulator model for proctoscopy and rigid sigmoidoscopy. This innovative, highly realistic simulated environment aims to enhance the training of healthcare professionals and improve the efficiency of detecting and diagnosing distal colorectal disease.

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1:  ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2:  ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4:  Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Joint Advisory Group (JAG) certification in endoscopy is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update standards for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

A modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety representation from experts and trainees. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on FS training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by national stakeholders for incorporation into the JAG FS certification pathway.

In total, 41 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (17), assessment of competence (7) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (A) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (B) minimum procedure count ≥175; (C) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (D) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Lower gastrointestinal Endoscopy course; (E) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedural skill (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skill (SMSA level 1); (F) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool and (G) successful performance in summative DOPS.

The UK standards for training and certification in FS have been updated to support training, uphold standards in FS and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

The objective of this meta-analysis is to explore the presently available, empirical findings on transfer of training from virtual (VR), augmented (AR), and mixed reality (MR) and determine whether such extended reality (XR)-based training is as effective as traditional training methods.

MR, VR, and AR have already been used as training tools in a variety of domains. However, the question of whether or not these manipulations are effective for training has not been quantitatively and conclusively answered. Evidence shows that, while extended realities can often be time-saving and cost-saving training mechanisms, their efficacy as training tools has been debated.

The current body of literature was examined and all qualifying articles pertaining to transfer of training from MR, VR, and AR were included in the meta-analysis. Effect sizes were calculated to determine the effects that XR-based factors, trainee-based factors, and task-based factors had on performance measures after XR-based training.

Results showed that training in XR does not express a different outcome than training in a nonsimulated, control environment. It is equally effective at enhancing performance.

Across numerous studies in multiple fields, extended realities are as effective of a training mechanism as the commonly accepted methods. The value of XR then lies in providing training in circumstances, which exclude traditional methods, such as situations when danger or cost may make traditional training impossible.

Competency in flexible endoscopy is a major goal of small animal internal medicine residency training programs. Hands-on laboratories to teach entry-level skills have traditionally used anesthetized laboratory dogs (live dog laboratory [LDL]). Virtual-reality endoscopy trainers (VRET) are used for this purpose in human medicine with the clear benefits of avoiding live animal use, decreasing trainee stress, and allowing repeated, independent training sessions. However, there are currently no commercially available veterinary endoscopy simulators. The purpose of the study was to determine whether a human VRET can be a reasonable alternative to a LDL for teaching early veterinary endoscopy skills. Twelve veterinarians with limited or no endoscopy experience underwent training with a VRET (n = 6) or a LDL (n = 6), performed two recorded esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) on anesthetized dogs for evaluation purposes (outcomes laboratory), and then underwent training with the alternative method. Participants completed questionnaires before any training and following each training session. No significant differences were found between training methods based on: measured parameters from the outcomes laboratory, including duration of time to perform EGD; evaluators' assessment of skills; and, assessment of skills through blinded review of the esophageal portion of EGD recordings. The VRET was less stressful for participants than the LDL (p = .02). All participants found that the VRET was a useful and acceptable alternative to the LDL for training of early endoscopy skills. Based on this limited study, VRET can serve as a reasonable alternative to LDL for teaching endoscopy skills to veterinarians.

Virtual reality simulation is becoming the standard when beginning endoscopic training. It offers various benefits including learning in a low-stakes environment, improvement of patient safety and optimization of valuable endoscopy time. This is a review of the evidence surrounding virtual reality simulation and its efficacy in teaching endoscopic techniques. There have been 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have investigated virtual reality simulation as a teaching tool in endoscopy. 10 RCTs studied virtual reality in colonoscopy, 3 in flexible sigmoidoscopy, 5 in esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and 3 in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. RCTs reported many outcomes including distance advanced in colonoscopy, comprehensive assessment of technical and non-technical skills, and patient comfort. Generally, these RCTs reveal that trainees with virtual reality simulation based learning improve in all of these areas in the beginning of the learning process. Virtual reality simulation was not effective as a replacement of conventional teaching methods. Additionally, feedback was shown to be an essential part of the learning process. Overall, virtual reality endoscopic simulation is emerging as a necessary augment to conventional learning given the ever increasing importance of patient safety and increasingly valuable endoscopy time; although work is still needed to study the nuances surrounding its integration into curriculum.

Endoscopy has traditionally been taught with novices practicing on real patients under the supervision of experienced endoscopists. Recently, the growing awareness of the need for patient safety has brought simulation training to the forefront. Simulation training can provide trainees with the chance to practice their skills in a learner-centred, risk-free environment. It is important to ensure that skills gained through simulation positively transfer to the clinical environment. This updated review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) simulation training in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

To determine whether virtual reality simulation training can supplement and/or replace early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) in diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and/or sigmoidoscopy for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience.

We searched the following health professions, educational, and computer databases until 12 July 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL, AMED, ERIC, Education Full Text, CBCA Education, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Abstracts in New Technology and Engineering, Computer and Information Systems Abstracts, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. We also searched the grey literature until November 2017.

We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing VR endoscopy simulation training versus any other method of endoscopy training with outcomes measured on humans in the clinical setting, including conventional patient-based training, training using another form of endoscopy simulation, or no training. We also included trials comparing two different methods of VR training.

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials, and extracted data on the trial characteristics and outcomes. We pooled data for meta-analysis where participant groups were similar, studies assessed the same intervention and comparator, and had similar definitions of outcome measures. We calculated risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes when studies reported the same or different outcome measures, respectively. We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.

We included 18 trials (421 participants; 3817 endoscopic procedures). We judged three trials as at low risk of bias. Ten trials compared VR training with no training, five trials with conventional endoscopy training, one trial with another form of endoscopy simulation training, and two trials compared two different methods of VR training. Due to substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity across our four comparisons, we did not perform a meta-analysis for several outcomes. We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, low, or very low due to risk of bias, imprecision, and heterogeneity.Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus no training: There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect on composite score of competency (MD 3.10, 95% CI -0.16 to 6.36; 1 trial, 24 procedures; low-quality evidence). Composite score of competency was based on 5-point Likert scales assessing seven domains: atraumatic technique, colonoscope advancement, use of instrument controls, flow of procedure, use of assistants, knowledge of specific procedure, and overall performance. Scoring range was from 7 to 35, a higher score representing a higher level of competence. Virtual reality training compared to no training likely provides participants with some benefit, as measured by independent procedure completion (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.26; 6 trials, 815 procedures; moderate-quality evidence). We evaluated overall rating of performance (MD 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75; 1 trial, 18 procedures), visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.00; 1 trial, 55 procedures), performance time (MD -0.20 minutes, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.30; 2 trials, 29 procedures), and patient discomfort (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.35; 2 trials, 145 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. No trials reported procedure-related complications or critical flaws (e.g. bleeding, luminal perforation) (3 trials, 550 procedures; moderate-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus conventional patient-based training: One trial reported composite score of competency but did not provide sufficient data for quantitative analysis. Virtual reality training compared to conventional patient-based training resulted in fewer independent procedure completions (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; 2 trials, 174 procedures; low-quality evidence). We evaluated performance time (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.80; 2 trials, 34 procedures), overall rating of performance (MD -0.90, 95% CI -4.40 to 2.60; 1 trial, 16 procedures), and visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.0, 95% CI -6.02 to 6.02; 1 trial, 18 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. Virtual reality training in combination with conventional training appears to be advantageous over VR training alone. No trials reported any procedure-related complications or critical flaws (3 trials, 72 procedures; very low-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus another form of endoscopy simulation: Based on one study, there were no differences between groups with respect to composite score of competency, performance time, and visualisation of mucosa. Virtual reality training in combination with another form of endoscopy simulation training did not appear to confer any benefit compared to VR training alone.Two methods of virtual reality training: Based on one study, a structured VR simulation-based training curriculum compared to self regulated learning on a VR simulator appears to provide benefit with respect to a composite score evaluating competency. Based on another study, a progressive-learning curriculum that sequentially increases task difficulty provides benefit with respect to a composite score of competency over the structured VR training curriculum.

VR simulation-based training can be used to supplement early conventional endoscopy training for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. However, we found insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of VR simulation-based training as a replacement for early conventional endoscopy training. The quality of the current evidence was low due to inadequate randomisation, allocation concealment, and/or blinding of outcome assessment in several trials. Further trials are needed that are at low risk of bias, utilise outcome measures with strong evidence of validity and reliability, and examine the optimal nature and duration of training.

Progress towards the goal of high-quality endoscopy across health economies has been founded on high-quality structured training programmes linked to credentialing practice and ongoing performance monitoring. This review appraises the recent literature on training interventions, which may benefit performance and competency acquisition in novice endoscopy trainees.

Increasing data on the learning curves for different endoscopic procedures has highlighted variations in performance amongst trainees. These differences may be dependent on the trainee, trainer and training programme. Evidence of the benefit of knowledge-based training, simulation training, hands-on courses and clinical training is available to inform the planning of ideal training pathway elements. The validation of performance assessment measures and global competency tools now also provides evidence on the effectiveness of training programmes to influence the learning curve. The impact of technological advances and intelligent metrics from national databases is also predicted to drive improvements and efficiencies in training programme design and monitoring of post-training outcomes. Training in endoscopy may be augmented through a series of pre-training and in-training interventions. In conjunction with performance metrics, these evidence-based interventions could be implemented into training pathways to optimise and quality assure training in endoscopy.

Training procedural skills in GI endoscopy once focused on threshold numbers. As threshold numbers poorly reflect individual competence, the focus gradually shifts towards a more individual approach. Tools to assess and document individual learning progress are being developed and incorporated in dedicated training curricula. However, there is a lack of consensus and training guidelines differ worldwide, which reflects uncertainties on optimal set-up of a training programme.

The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the currently available literature for the use of training and assessment methods in GI endoscopy. Second, we aimed to identify the role of simulator-based training as well as the value of continuous competence assessment in patient-based training. Third, we aimed to propose a structured training curriculum based on the presented evidence.

A literature search was carried out in the available medical and educational literature databases. The results were systematically reviewed and studies were included using a predefined protocol with independent assessment by two reviewers and a final consensus round.

The literature search yielded 5846 studies. Ninety-four relevant studies on simulators, assessment methods, learning curves and training programmes for GI endoscopy met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven studies on simulator validation were included. Good validity was demonstrated for four simulators. Twenty-three studies reported on simulator training and learning curves, including 17 randomised control trials. Increased performance on a virtual reality (VR) simulator was shown in all studies. Improved performance in patient-based assessment was demonstrated in 14 studies. Four studies reported on the use of simulators for assessment of competence levels. Current simulators lack the discriminative power to determine competence levels in patient-based endoscopy. Eight out of 14 studies on colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endosonography reported on learning curves in patient-based endoscopy and proved the value of this approach for measuring performance. Ten studies explored the numbers needed to gain competence, but the proposed thresholds varied widely between them. Five out of nine studies describing the development and evaluation of assessment tools for GI endoscopy provided insight into the performance of endoscopists. Five out of seven studies proved that intense training programmes result in good performance.

The use of validated VR simulators in the early training setting accelerates the learning of practical skills. Learning curves are valuable for the continuous assessment of performance and are more relevant than threshold numbers. Future research will strengthen these conclusions by evaluating simulation-based as well as patient-based training in GI endoscopy. A complete curriculum with the assessment of competence throughout training needs to be developed for all GI endoscopy procedures.

Upper and lower endoscopy is an important tool that is being utilized more frequently by general surgeons. Training in therapeutic endoscopic techniques has become a mandatory requirement for general surgery residency programs in the United States. The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery has been developed to train and assess competency in these advanced techniques. Simulation has been shown to increase the skill and learning curve of trainees in other surgical disciplines. Several types of endoscopy simulators are commercially available; mechanical trainers, animal based, and virtual reality or computer-based simulators all have their benefits and limitations. However they have all been shown to improve trainee's endoscopic skills. Endoscopic simulators will play a critical role as part of a comprehensive curriculum designed to train the next generation of surgeons. We reviewed recent literature related to the various types of endoscopic simulators and their use in an educational curriculum, and discuss the relevant findings.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard technique for gallbladder diseases in both acute and elective surgery. Nevertheless, reports from national surveys still seem to represent some doubts regarding its diffusion. There is neither a wide consensus on its indications nor on its possible related morbidity. On the other hand, more than 25 years have passed since the introduction of LC, and we have all witnessed the exponential growth of knowledge, skill and technology that has followed it. In 1995, the EAES published its consensus statement on laparoscopic cholecystectomy in which seven main questions were answered, according to the available evidence. During the following 20 years, there have been several additional guidelines on LC, mainly focused on some particular aspect, such as emergency or concomitant biliary tract surgery.

In 2012, several Italian surgical societies decided to revisit the clinical recommendations for the role of laparoscopy in the treatment of gallbladder diseases in adults, to update and supplement the existing guidelines with recommendations that reflect what is known and what constitutes good practice concerning LC.

Surgical residents have learned flexible endoscopy by practicing on patients in hospital settings under the strict guidance of experienced surgeons. Simulation is often used to "pretrain" novices on endoscopic skills before real clinical practice; nonetheless, the optimal method of training remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare endoscopic virtual reality and physical model simulators and their respective roles in transferring skills to the clinical environment.

At the beginning of a skills development rotation, 27 surgical postgraduate year 1 residents performed a baseline screening colonoscopy on a real patient under faculty supervision. Their performances were scored using the Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES). Subsequently, interns completed a 3-week flexible endoscopy curriculum developed at our institution. One-third of the residents were assigned to train with the GI Mentor simulator, one-third trained with the Kyoto simulator, and one-third of the residents trained using both simulators. At the end of their rotations, each postgraduate year 1 resident performed one posttest colonoscopy on a different patient and was again scored using GAGES by an experienced faculty.

A statistically significant improvement in the GAGES total score (p < 0.001) and on each of its subcomponents (p = 0.001) was observed from pretest to posttest for all groups combined. Subgroup analysis indicated that trainees in the GI Mentor or both simulators conditions showed significant improvement from pretest to posttest in terms of GAGES total score (p = 0.017 vs 0.024, respectively). This was not observed for those exclusively using the Kyoto platform (p = 0.072). Nonetheless, no single training condition was shown to be a better training modality when compared to others in terms of total GAGES score or in any of its subcomponents.

Colonoscopy simulator training with the GI Mentor platform exclusively or in combination with a physical model simulator improves skill performance in real colonoscopy cases when measured with the GAGES tool.

Simulation-based training (SBT) in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been increasingly adopted by gastroenterology fellowship programs. However, the effectiveness of SBT in enhancing trainee skills remains unclear. We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis of published literature on SBT in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

We performed a systematic search of multiple electronic databases for all original studies that evaluated SBT in gastrointestinal endoscopy in comparison with no intervention or alternative instructional approaches. Outcomes included skills (in a test setting), behaviors (in clinical practice), and effects on patients. We pooled effect size (ES) using random-effects meta-analysis.

From 10,903 articles, we identified 39 articles, including 21 randomized trials of SBT, enrolling 1181 participants. Compared with no intervention (n = 32 studies), SBT significantly improved endoscopic process skills in a test setting (ES, 0.79; n = 22), process behaviors in clinical practice (ES, 0.49; n = 8), time to procedure completion in both a test setting (ES, 0.79; n = 16) and clinical practice (ES, 0.75; n = 5), and patient outcomes (procedural completion and risk of major complications; ES, 0.45; n = 10). Only 5 studies evaluated the comparative effectiveness of different SBT approaches; which provided inconclusive evidence regarding feedback and simulation modalities.

Simulation-based education in gastrointestinal endoscopy is associated with improved performance in a test setting and in clinical practice, and improved patient outcomes compared with no intervention. Comparative effectiveness studies of different simulation modalities are limited.

The aim of this study was to explore if a course consisting of lectures combined with simulator training in coronary angiography (CA) could accelerate the early learning curve when performing CA on patients.Knowledge in performing CA is included in the curriculum for the general cardiologist. The method, according to American College of Cardiology and European Society of Cardiology guidelines, for this training is not well defined but simulator training is proposed to be an option. However, the transfer effect from a CA simulator to performance in real world cath lab is not validated.

Fifty-four residents without practical skills in CA completed the course and 12 continued to training in invasive cardiology. These residents were tracked in the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry and compared to a control group of 46 novel operators for evaluation of performance metrics. A total of 4472 CAs were analyzed.

Course participants demonstrated no consistent acceleration in the early learning curve in real world cath lab. They had longer fluoroscopy time compared to controls (median 360 seconds (IQR 245-557) vs. 289 seconds (IQR 179-468), p < 0.001). Safety measures also indicated more complications appearing at the ward, in particular when using the femoral approach (6.25% vs. 2.53%, p < 0.001).

Since the results of this retrospective non-randomized study were negative, the role of a structured course including simulator training for skills acquisition in CA is still uncertain. Randomized transfer studies are warranted to justify further use of simulators for training in CA.

A systematic review to determine whether skills acquired through simulation-based training transfer to the operating room for the procedures of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopy.

Simulation-based training assumes that skills are directly transferable to the operation room, but only a few studies have investigated the effect of simulation-based training on surgical performance.

A systematic search strategy that was used in 2006 was updated to retrieve relevant studies. Inclusion of articles was determined using a predetermined protocol, independent assessment by 2 reviewers, and a final consensus decision.

Seventeen randomized controlled trials and 3 nonrandomized comparative studies were included in this review. In most cases, simulation-based training was in addition to patient-based training programs. Only 2 studies directly compared simulation-based training in isolation with patient-based training. For laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 10 studies) and endoscopy (n = 10 studies), participants who reached simulation-based skills proficiency before undergoing patient-based assessment performed with higher global assessment scores and fewer errors in the operating room than their counterparts who did not receive simulation training. Not all parameters measured were improved. Two of the endoscopic studies compared simulation-based training in isolation with patient-based training with different results: for sigmoidoscopy, patient-based training was more effective, whereas for colonoscopy, simulation-based training was equally effective.

Skills acquired by simulation-based training seem to be transferable to the operative setting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopy. Future research will strengthen these conclusions by evaluating predetermined competency levels on the same simulators and using objective validated global rating scales to measure operative performance.

Advances in virtual endoscopy simulators have paralleled an interest in medical simulation for gastrointestinal endoscopy training.

The primary objective was to determine whether the virtual endoscopy simulator training could improve the performance of novices.

A systematic review.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared virtual endoscopy simulator training with bedside teaching or any other intervention for novices were collected.

Novice endoscopists.

The PRISMA statement was followed during the course of the research. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect were searched (up to July 2013). Data extraction and assessment were independently performed.

Independent procedure completion, total procedure time and required assistance.

Fifteen studies (n = 354) were eligible for inclusion: 9 studies designed for colonoscopy training, 6 for gastroscopy training. For gastroscopy training, procedure completed independently was reported in 87.7% of participants in simulator training group compared to 70.0% of participants in control group (1 study; 22 participants; RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.13-1.39; P<0.0001). For colonoscopy training, procedure completed independently was reported in 89.3% of participants in simulator training group compared to 88.9% of participants in control group (7 study; 163 participants; RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.88-1.37; P = 0.41; I(2) = 85%).

The included studies are quite in-homogeneous with respect to training schedule and procedure.

Virtual endoscopy simulator training might be effective for gastroscopy, but so far no data is available to support this for colonoscopy.

The use of simulators as educational tools for medical procedures is spreading rapidly and many efforts have been made for their implementation in gastrointestinal endoscopy training. Endoscopy simulation training has been suggested for ascertaining patient safety while positively influencing the trainees' learning curve. Virtual simulators are the most promising tool among all available types of simulators. These integrated modalities offer a human-like endoscopy experience by combining virtual images of the gastrointestinal tract and haptic realism with using a customized endoscope. From their first steps in the 1980s until today, research involving virtual endoscopic simulators can be divided in two categories: investigation of the impact of virtual simulator training in acquiring endoscopy skills and measuring competence. Emphasis should also be given to the financial impact of their implementation in endoscopy, including the cost of these state-of-the-art simulators and the potential economic benefits from their usage. Advances in technology will contribute to the upgrade of existing models and the development of new ones; while further research should be carried out to discover new fields of application.

To investigate whether preclinical laparoscopy training offers a benefit over standard apprenticeship training and apprenticeship training in combination with simulation training.

This randomized controlled trial consisted of 3 groups of first-year surgical registrars receiving a different teaching method in laparoscopic surgery.

The KU LEUVEN Faculty of Medicine is the largest medical faculty in Belgium.

Thirty final-year medical students starting a general surgical career in the next academic year.

Thirty final-year medical students were randomized into 3 groups, which differed in the way they were exposed to laparoscopic simulation training but were comparable in regard to ambidexterity, sex, age, and laparoscopic psychomotoric skills. The control group received only clinical training during surgical residentship, whereas the interval group received clinical training in combination with simulation training. The registrars were allowed to do deliberate practice. The Centre for Surgical Technologies Preclinical Training Programme (CST PTP) group received a preclinical simulation course during the final year as medical students, but was not exposed to any extra simulation training during surgical residentship. At the beginning of surgical residentship and 6 months later, all subjects performed a standardized suturing task and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a POP Trainer. All procedures were recorded together with time and motion tracking parameters. All videos were scored by a blinded observer using global rating scales.

At baseline the 3 groups were comparable. At 6 months, for suturing, the CST PTP group was better than both the other groups with respect to time, checklist, and amount of movements. The interval group was better than the control group on only the time and checklist score. For the cholecystectomy evaluation, there was a statistical difference between the CST PTP study group and both other groups on all evaluation scales in favor of the CST PTP group.

Structured, preclinical proficiency-based training is better than clinical training combined with laboratory training or clinical training alone.

Standard surgical training has traditionally been one of apprenticeship, where the surgical trainee learns to perform surgery under the supervision of a trained surgeon. This is time-consuming, costly, and of variable effectiveness. Training using a virtual reality simulator is an option to supplement standard training. Virtual reality training improves the technical skills of surgical trainees such as decreased time for suturing and improved accuracy. The clinical impact of virtual reality training is not known.

To assess the benefits (increased surgical proficiency and improved patient outcomes) and harms (potentially worse patient outcomes) of supplementary virtual reality training of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until July 2012.

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing virtual reality training versus other forms of training including box-trainer training, no training, or standard laparoscopic training in surgical trainees with little laparoscopic experience. We also planned to include trials comparing different methods of virtual reality training. We included only trials that assessed the outcomes in people undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Two authors independently identified trials and collected data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis.

We included eight trials covering 109 surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience. Of the eight trials, six compared virtual reality versus no supplementary training. One trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training and versus no supplementary training, and one trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training. There were no trials that compared different forms of virtual reality training. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Operating time and operative performance were the only outcomes reported in the trials. The remaining outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, quality of life (the primary outcomes of this review) and hospital stay (a secondary outcome) were not reported. Virtual reality training versus no supplementary training: The operating time was significantly shorter in the virtual reality group than in the no supplementary training group (3 trials; 49 participants; MD -11.76 minutes; 95% CI -15.23 to -8.30). Two trials that could not be included in the meta-analysis also showed a reduction in operating time (statistically significant in one trial). The numerical values for operating time were not reported in these two trials. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than the no supplementary training group using the fixed-effect model (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 1.65; 95% CI 0.72 to 2.58). The results became non-significant when the random-effects model was used (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 2.14; 95% CI -1.29 to 5.57). One trial could not be included in the meta-analysis as it did not report the numerical values. The authors stated that the operative performance of virtual reality group was significantly better than the control group. Virtual reality training versus box-trainer training: The only trial that reported operating time did not report the numerical values. In this trial, the operating time in the virtual reality group was significantly shorter than in the box-trainer group. Of the two trials that reported operative performance, only one trial reported the numerical values. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than in the box-trainer group (1 trial; 19 participants; SMD 1.46; 95% CI 0.42 to 2.50). In the other trial that did not report the numerical values, the authors stated that the operative performance in the virtual reality group was significantly better than the box-trainer group.

Virtual reality training appears to decrease the operating time and improve the operative performance of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience when compared with no training or with box-trainer training. However, the impact of this decreased operating time and improvement in operative performance on patients and healthcare funders in terms of improved outcomes or decreased costs is not known. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias and random errors are necessary. Such trials should assess the impact of virtual reality training on clinical outcomes.

Standard surgical training has traditionally been one of apprenticeship, where the surgical trainee learns to perform surgery under the supervision of a trained surgeon. This is time-consuming, costly, and of variable effectiveness. Training using a virtual reality simulator is an option to supplement standard training. Virtual reality training improves the technical skills of surgical trainees such as decreased time for suturing and improved accuracy. The clinical impact of virtual reality training is not known.

To assess the benefits (increased surgical proficiency and improved patient outcomes) and harms (potentially worse patient outcomes) of supplementary virtual reality training of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until July 2012.

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing virtual reality training versus other forms of training including box-trainer training, no training, or standard laparoscopic training in surgical trainees with little laparoscopic experience. We also planned to include trials comparing different methods of virtual reality training. We included only trials that assessed the outcomes in people undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Two authors independently identified trials and collected data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis.

We included eight trials covering 109 surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience. Of the eight trials, six compared virtual reality versus no supplementary training. One trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training and versus no supplementary training, and one trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training. There were no trials that compared different forms of virtual reality training. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Operating time and operative performance were the only outcomes reported in the trials. The remaining outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, quality of life (the primary outcomes of this review) and hospital stay (a secondary outcome) were not reported. Virtual reality training versus no supplementary training: The operating time was significantly shorter in the virtual reality group than in the no supplementary training group (3 trials; 49 participants; MD -11.76 minutes; 95% CI -15.23 to -8.30). Two trials that could not be included in the meta-analysis also showed a reduction in operating time (statistically significant in one trial). The numerical values for operating time were not reported in these two trials. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than the no supplementary training group using the fixed-effect model (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 1.65; 95% CI 0.72 to 2.58). The results became non-significant when the random-effects model was used (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 2.14; 95% CI -1.29 to 5.57). One trial could not be included in the meta-analysis as it did not report the numerical values. The authors stated that the operative performance of virtual reality group was significantly better than the control group. Virtual reality training versus box-trainer training: The only trial that reported operating time did not report the numerical values. In this trial, the operating time in the virtual reality group was significantly shorter than in the box-trainer group. Of the two trials that reported operative performance, only one trial reported the numerical values. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than in the box-trainer group (1 trial; 19 participants; SMD 1.46; 95% CI 0.42 to 2.50). In the other trial that did not report the numerical values, the authors stated that the operative performance in the virtual reality group was significantly better than the box-trainer group.

Virtual reality training appears to decrease the operating time and improve the operative performance of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience when compared with no training or with box-trainer training. However, the impact of this decreased operating time and improvement in operative performance on patients and healthcare funders in terms of improved outcomes or decreased costs is not known. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias and random errors are necessary. Such trials should assess the impact of virtual reality training on clinical outcomes.

Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehensive systematic review of simulation-based instruction.

Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and bibliographies of previous reviews through May 2011.

Original research in any language measuring the direct effects on patients of simulation-based instruction for health professionals, in comparison with no intervention or other instruction.

Two reviewers independently abstracted information on learners, topics, study quality including unit of analysis, and validity evidence. We pooled outcomes using random effects.

From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 50 studies reporting patient outcomes for at least 3,221 trainees and 16,742 patients. Clinical topics included airway management (14 studies), gastrointestinal endoscopy (12), and central venous catheter insertion (8). There were 31 studies involving postgraduate physicians and seven studies each involving practicing physicians, nurses, and emergency medicine technicians. Fourteen studies (28 %) used an appropriate unit of analysis. Measurement validity was supported in seven studies reporting content evidence, three reporting internal structure, and three reporting relations with other variables. The pooled Hedges' g effect size for 33 comparisons with no intervention was 0.47 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.63); and for nine comparisons with non-simulation instruction, it was 0.36 (95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.78).

Focused field in education; high inconsistency (I(2) > 50 % in most analyses).

Simulation-based education was associated with small-moderate patient benefits in comparison with no intervention and non-simulation instruction, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Unit of analysis errors were common, and validity evidence was infrequently reported.

The traditional method of teaching in surgery is known as "see one, do one, teach one." However, many have argued that this method is no longer applicable, mainly because of concerns for patient safety. The purpose of this article is to show that the basis of the traditional teaching method is still valid in surgical training if it is combined with various adult learning principles.

The authors reviewed literature regarding the history of the formation of the surgical residency program, adult learning principles, mentoring, and medical simulation. The authors provide examples for how these learning techniques can be incorporated into a surgical resident training program.

The surgical residency program created by Dr. William Halsted remained virtually unchanged until recently with reductions in resident work hours and changes to a competency-based training system. Such changes have reduced the teaching time between attending physicians and residents. Learning principles such as experience, observation, thinking, and action and deliberate practice can be used to train residents. Mentoring is also an important aspect in teaching surgical technique. The authors review the different types of simulators-standardized patients, virtual reality applications, and high-fidelity mannequin simulators-and the advantages and disadvantages of using them.

The traditional teaching method of "see one, do one, teach one" in surgical residency programs is simple but still applicable. It needs to evolve with current changes in the medical system to adequately train surgical residents and also provide patients with safe, evidence-based care.

Digitization has become part and parcel of the contemporary prosthodontics with the probability of most of the procedures being based on the digital techniques in near future. Let us think of X-rays or photographs, making impressions, recording jaw movements or fabricating prosthesis, educating and training new dentists or patient motivation for practice build up, all has become digital. CAD-CAM has revolutionized not just the ceramic technology but has also been used for the CAD-CAM implant surgeries, maxillofacial prosthesis and diagnostic splints. Today a practicing dentist needs to be abreast with the latest but with the technology changing so fast, this poses a great challenge. There is endless scope of digitisation and technology in prosthodontics- let it be in the clinical and lab procedures like use of CAD-CAM technology, stereolithography, rapid prototyping, use of virtual articulators and digital face bows, digital radiographs, or in the field of training, education and research by the use of virtual patient programs, dental softwares, optoelectronic recording of jaw motion, digital instron machine, retention testing device, audiovisual aids,… the list will remain endless. The article reviews those various aspects of prosthodontics where digitization has modified the conventional procedures. For discussion they have been considered under the educational aspect, diagnostics, treatment procedures, prosthesis fabrication and lastly the research and futuristic development. The day is not far when remote sensing robotic devices would be performing the restorations under the command and surveillance of the master-the dentist without his immediate presence.

Traditionally, training in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been based upon an apprenticeship model, with novice endoscopists learning basic skills under the supervision of experienced preceptors in the clinical setting. Over the last two decades, however, the growing awareness of the need for patient safety has brought the issue of simulation-based training to the forefront. While the use of simulation-based training may have important educational and societal advantages, the effectiveness of virtual reality gastrointestinal endoscopy simulators has yet to be clearly demonstrated.

To determine whether virtual reality simulation training can supplement and/or replace early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) in diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy and/or sigmoidoscopy for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience.

Health professions, educational and computer databases were searched until November 2011 including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Biosis Previews, CINAHL, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, ERIC, Education Full Text, CBCA Education, Career and Technical Education @ Scholars Portal, Education Abstracts @ Scholars Portal, Expanded Academic ASAP @ Scholars Portal, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Abstracts in New Technologies and Engineering and Computer & Information Systems Abstracts. The grey literature until November 2011 was also searched.

Randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing virtual reality endoscopy (oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy) simulation training versus any other method of endoscopy training including conventional patient-based training, in-job training, training using another form of endoscopy simulation (e.g. low-fidelity simulator), or no training (however defined by authors) were included.  Trials comparing one method of virtual reality training versus another method of virtual reality training (e.g. comparison of two different virtual reality simulators) were also included. Only trials measuring outcomes on humans in the clinical setting (as opposed to animals or simulators) were included.

Two authors (CMS, MES) independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials, and extracted data on the trial characteristics and outcomes. Due to significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity it was not possible to pool study data in order to perform a meta-analysis. Where data were available for each continuous outcome we calculated standardized mean difference with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis. Where data were available for dichotomous outcomes we calculated relative risk with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat-analysis.

Thirteen trials, with 278 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Four trials compared simulation-based training with conventional patient-based endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) whereas nine trials compared simulation-based training with no training. Only three trials were at low risk of bias. Simulation-based training, as compared with no training, generally appears to provide participants with some advantage over their untrained peers as measured by composite score of competency, independent procedure completion, performance time, independent insertion depth, overall rating of performance or competency error rate and mucosal visualization. Alternatively, there was no conclusive evidence that simulation-based training was superior to conventional patient-based training, although data were limited.

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.

The available data concerning recently marketed computer simulators for training in digestive endoscopy suggest that they could play a role in the pre-clinical phase of training, thus potentially leading to a shorter learning curve and better performance in the endoscopy room during the early phase of hands-on training. Technical improvements are still needed before such simulators can be used for the retraining of experienced endoscopists and for training in the use of newly developed devices dedicated to therapeutic endoscopy.

Colonoscopy simulation has been increasingly applied as a method of training, which can supplement the traditional patient-based training in recent years. However, the current level of realism of the simulation is insufficient. One of the main difficulties degrading the realism is real-time simulation of colon deformation involving multi-contact interaction with the endoscope.

This paper proposes a novel simulation framework for real-time deformation of the colon and endoscope, using a skeleton-driven deformation method. Cylindrical lattices and a centre-line are employed as the skeletons, and a mass-spring model is applied to the skeletons for the mechanics-based simulation. The centre-line-based collision detection and resolution algorithm is proposed to simulate the interaction between the colon and endoscope. A haptic rendering algorithm using the energy method is proposed to produce feedback force, based on physical interaction between the colon and endoscope.

The proposed simulation framework has been implemented and evaluated in colonoscopy simulation. The simulation results show that the proposed method allows real-time simulation (28 Hz) using a colon model composed of up to 241,440 meshes.

The proposed method allows real-time simulation of colon and endoscope deformation while maintaining a visually plausible result and realistic haptic sensation.

Training simulators have been used for decades with success; however, a standardized educational strategy for diagnostic EGD is still lacking.

Development of a training strategy for diagnostic upper endoscopy.

Prospective, randomized trial.

A total of 28 medical and surgical residents without endoscopic experience were enrolled. Basic skills evaluations were performed following a structured program involving theoretical lectures and a hands-on course in diagnostic EGD. Subsequently, stratified randomization to clinical plus simulator training (group 1, n = 10), clinical training only (group 2, n = 9), or simulator training only (group 3, n = 9) was performed. Ten sessions of simulator training were conducted for groups 1 and 3 during the 4-month program. Group 2 underwent standard training in endoscopy without supplemental simulator training. The final evaluation was performed on the simulator and by observation of 3 clinical cases. Skills and procedural times were recorded by blinded and unblinded evaluators.

Time to reach the duodenum, pylorus, or esophagus.

All trainees demonstrated a significant reduction in procedure time during a simple manual skills test (P < .05) and significantly better skills scores (P = .006, P = .042 and P = .017) in the simulator independent of the training strategy. Group 1 showed shorter times to intubate the esophagus (61 ± 26 seconds vs 85 ± 30 seconds and 95 ± 36 seconds) and the pylorus (183 ± 65 seconds vs 207 ± 61 seconds and 247 ± 66 seconds) during the clinical evaluation. Blinded assessment of EGD skills showed significantly better results for group 1 compared with group 3. Blinded and unblinded evaluations were not statistically different.

Small sample size.

Structured simulator training supplementing clinical training in upper endoscopy appears to be superior to clinical training alone. Simulator training alone does not seem to be sufficient to improve endoscopic skills.

This study developed and validated a virtual reality (VR) simulator for use by interventional radiologists.

Research in the area of skill acquisition reports practice as essential to become a task expert. Studies on simulation show skills learned in VR can be successfully transferred to a real-world task. Recently, with improvements in technology, VR simulators have been developed to allow complex medical procedures to be practiced without risking the patient.

Three studies are reported. In Study I, 35 consultant interventional radiologists took part in a cognitive task analysis to empirically establish the key competencies of the Seldinger procedure. In Study 2, 62 participants performed one simulated procedure, and their performance was compared by expertise. In Study 3, the transferability of simulator training to a real-world procedure was assessed with 14 trainees.

Study I produced 23 key competencies that were implemented as performance measures in the simulator. Study 2 showed the simulator had both face and construct validity, although some issues were identified. Study 3 showed the group that had undergone simulator training received significantly higher mean performance ratings on a subsequent patient procedure.

The findings of this study support the centrality of validation in the successful design of simulators and show the utility of simulators as a training device.

The studies show the key elements of a validation program for a simulator. In addition to task analysis and face and construct validities, the authors highlight the importance of transfer of training in validation studies.

Incorporation of screen based simulators into medical training has recently gained momentum, as advances in technology have coincided with a government led drive to increase the use of medical simulation training to improve patient safety with progressive reductions in working hours available for junior doctors to train. High fidelity screen based simulators hold great appeal for endoscopy training. Potentially, their incorporation into endoscopy training curricula could enhance speed of acquisition of skills and improve patient comfort and safety during the initial phase of learning. They could also be used to demonstrate competence as part of the future relicensing and revalidation of trained endoscopists. Two screen based simulators are widely available for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy training, with a third recently produced in prototype. The utility of these simulators in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy training has been investigated, and construct and expert validity has been shown. Novices demonstrate a learning curve with simulator training that appears to represent real learning of colonoscopy skills. This learning transfers well to the real patient environment, with improvements in performance and patient discomfort scores in subsequent initial live colonoscopy. The significant limitations of currently available screen based simulators include cost implications, and restrictions on a role in certification and revalidation. Many questions remain to be answered by future research, including how best to incorporate screen based simulators into a colonoscopy training programme, their role in training in therapeutic endoscopy and the impact of simulator training on patient safety.

The Olympus colonoscopy simulator provides a high-fidelity training platform designed to develop knowledge and skills in colonoscopy. It has the potential to shorten the learning process to competency.

To investigate the efficacy of the simulator in training novices in colonoscopy by comparing training outcomes from simulator training with those of standard patient-based training.

Multinational, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

Four academic endoscopy centers in the United Kingdom, Italy, and The Netherlands.

This study included 36 novice colonoscopists who were randomized to 16 hours of simulator training (subjects) or patient-based training (controls). Participants completed 3 simulator cases before and after training. Three live cases were assessed after training by blinded experts.

Automatically recorded performance metrics for the simulator cases and blinded expert assessment of live cases using Direct Observation of Procedural Skills and Global Score sheets.

Simulator training significantly improved performance on simulated cases compared with patient-based training. Subjects had higher completion rates (P=.001) and shorter completion times (P < .001) and demonstrated superior technical skill (reduced simulated pain scores, correct use of abdominal pressure, and loop management). On live colonoscopy, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups.

Assessment tools for live colonoscopies may lack sensitivity to discriminate between the skills of relative novices.

Performance of novices trained on the colonoscopy simulator matched the performance of those with standard patient-based colonoscopy training, and novices in the simulator group demonstrated superior technical skills on simulated cases. The simulator should be considered as a tool for developing knowledge and skills prior to clinical practice.

Currently, little evidence supports computer-based simulation for ERCP training.

To determine face and construct validity of a computer-based simulator for ERCP and assess its perceived utility as a training tool.

Novice and expert endoscopists completed 2 simulated ERCP cases by using the GI Mentor II.

Virtual Education and Surgical Simulation Laboratory, Medical College of Georgia.

Outcomes included times to complete the procedure, reach the papilla, and use fluoroscopy; attempts to cannulate the papilla, pancreatic duct, and common bile duct; and number of contrast injections and complications. Subjects assessed simulator graphics, procedural accuracy, difficulty, haptics, overall realism, and training potential.

Only when performance data from cases A and B were combined did the GI Mentor II differentiate novices and experts based on times to complete the procedure, reach the papilla, and use fluoroscopy. Across skill levels, overall opinions were similar regarding graphics (moderately realistic), accuracy (similar to clinical ERCP), difficulty (similar to clinical ERCP), overall realism (moderately realistic), and haptics. Most participants (92%) claimed that the simulator has definite training potential or should be required for training.

Small sample size, single institution.

The GI Mentor II demonstrated construct validity for ERCP based on select metrics. Most subjects thought that the simulated graphics, procedural accuracy, and overall realism exhibit face validity. Subjects deemed it a useful training tool. Study repetition involving more participants and cases may help confirm results and establish the simulator's ability to differentiate skill levels based on ERCP-specific metrics.

Simulators may improve the efficiency, safety, and quality of endoscopic training. However, no objective, reliable, and valid tool exists to assess clinical endoscopic skills. Such a tool to measure the outcomes of educational strategies is a necessity. This multicenter, multidisciplinary trial aimed to develop instruments for evaluating basic flexible endoscopic skills and to demonstrate their reliability and validity.

The Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) Upper Endoscopy (GAGES-UE) and Colonoscopy (GAGES-C) are rating scales developed by expert endoscopists. The GAGES scale was completed by the attending endoscopist (A) and an observer (O) in self-assessment (S) during procedures to establish interrater reliability (IRR, using the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) and internal consistency (IC, using Cronbach's alpha). Instrumentation was evaluated when possible and correlated with total scores. Construct and external validity were examined by comparing novice (NOV) and experienced (EXP) endoscopists (Student's t-test). Correlations were calculated for GAGES-UE and GAGES-C with participants who had performed both.

For the 139 completed evaluations (60 NOV, 79 EXP), IRR (A vs. O) was 0.96 for GAGES-UE and 0.97 for GAGES-C. The IRR between S and A was 0.78 for GAGES-UE and 0.89 for GAGES-C. The IC was 0.89 for GAGES-UE, and 0.95 for GAGES-C. There were mean differences between the NOV and the EXP endoscopists for GAGE-UE (14.4 +/- 3.7 vs. 18.5 +/- 1.6; p < 0.001) and GAGE-C (11.8 +/- 3.8 vs. 18.8 +/- 1.3; p < 0.001). Good correlation was found between the scores for the GAGE-UE and the GAGE-C (r = 0.75; n = 37). Instrumentation, when performed, demonstrated correlations with total scores of 0.84 (GAGE-UE; n = 73) and 0.86 (GAGE-C; n = 45).

The GAGES-UE and GAGES-C are easy to administer and consistent and meet high standards of reliability and validity. They can be used to measure the effectiveness of simulator training and to provide specific feedback. The GAGES results can be generalized to North American and European endoscopists and may contribute to the definition of technical proficiency in endoscopy.