Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 2968–2983 | Cite as

Feasibility of adapting the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery trainer box to endoscopic skills training tool

  • Oscar M. Crespin
  • Allan Okrainec
  • Andrea V. Kwong
  • Ilay Habaz
  • Maria Carolina Jimenez
  • Peter Szasz
  • Ethan Weiss
  • Cecilia G. Gonzalez
  • Jeffrey D. Mosko
  • Louis W. C. Liu
  • Lee L. Swanstrom
  • Silvana Perretta
  • Eran Shlomovitz
Dynamic Manuscript

Abstract

Background

The fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) training box is a validated tool, already accessible to surgical trainees to hone their laparoscopic skills. We aim to investigate the feasibility of adapting the FLS box for the practice and assessment of endoscopic skills. This would allow for a highly available, reusable, low-cost, mechanical trainer.

Methods

The design and development process was based on a user-centered design, which is a combination of the design thinking method and cognitive task analysis. The process comprises four phases: empathy, cognitive, prototyping/adaptation, and end user testing. The underlying idea was to utilize as many of the existing components of FLS training to maintain simplicity and cost effectiveness while allowing for the practice of clinically relevant endoscopic skills. A sample size of 18 participants was calculated to be sufficient to detect performance differences between experts and trainees using a two tailed t test with alpha set at 0.05, standard deviation of 5.5, and a power of 80%.

Results

Adaptation to the FLS box included two fundamental attachments: a front panel with an insertion point for an endoscope and a shaft which provides additional support and limits movement of the scope. The panel also allows for mounting of retroflexion tasks. Six endoscopic tasks inspired by FLS were designed (two of which utilize existing FLS components). Pilot testing with 38 participants showed high user’s satisfaction and demonstrated that the trainer was robust and reliable. Task performance times was able to discriminate between trainees and experts for all six tasks.

Conclusions

A mechanical, reusable, low-cost adaptation of the FLS training box for endoscopic skills is feasible and has high user satisfaction. Preliminary testing shows that the simulator is able to discriminate between trainees and experts. Following further validation, this adaptation may act as a supplement to the FES program.

Keywords

Endoscopy Simulation Training FLS FES Surgical education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jaime Burke, Caterina Massino, Agnes Gronfier, and Thomas Sun for their support during the whole process of this study. This study was supported by a 2015 SAGES research grant provided to University Health Network/University of Toronto (FC#410004690).

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Oscar Maximiliano Crespin, Allan Okrainec, Andrea V. Kwong, Ilay Habaz, Maria Carolina Jimenez, Peter Szasz, Ethan Weiss, Cecilia G. Gonzalez, Jeffrey D. Mosko, Louis W.C. Liu, Lee L. Swanstrom, Silvana Perretta, Eran Shlomovitz, have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

464_2018_6154_MOESM1_ESM.mov (308 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (MOV 315439 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Bittner JGT, Coverdill JE, Imam T, Deladisma AM, Edwards MA, Mellinger JD (2008) Do increased training requirements in gastrointestinal endoscopy and advanced laparoscopy necessitate a paradigm shift? A survey of program directors in surgery. J Surg Educ 65:418–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    FES elevates the Standards and training for minimally invasive surgery. http://www.sages.org
  3. 3.
    Mueller CL, Kaneva P, Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC (2014) Colonoscopy performance correlates with scores on the FES manual skills test. Surg Endosc 28:3081–3085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peters JH, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL, Soper NJ, Sillin LF, Schirmer B, Hoffman K (2004) Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 135:21–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swanstrom LL, Fried GM, Hoffman KI, Soper NJ (2006) Beta test results of a new system assessing competence in laparoscopic surgery. J Am Coll Surg 202:62–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Fraser SA, Stanbridge D, Ghitulescu G, Andrew CG (2004) Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 240:518–525. (discussion 525–518)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sroka G, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Kaneva PA, Fayez R, Fried GM (2010) Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery simulator training to proficiency improves laparoscopic performance in the operating room-a randomized controlled trial. Am J Surg 199:115–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vassiliou MC, Dunkin BJ, Fried GM, Mellinger JD, Trus T, Kaneva P, Lyons C, Korndorffer JR Jr., Ujiki M, Velanovich V, Kochman ML, Tsuda S, Martinez J, Scott DJ, Korus G, Park A, Marks JM (2014) Fundamentals of endoscopic surgery: creation and validation of the hands-on test. Surg Endosc 28:704–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown T (2008) Design thinking. Harvard Bus Rev 86:84–92, 141Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Militello LG, Hutton RJ (1998) Applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA): a practitioner’s toolkit for understanding cognitive task demands. Ergonomics 41:1618–1641CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Messick S (1995) Validation of inferences from person’s responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol 50:9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cook DA, Beckman TJ (2006) Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med 119:166-e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Downing SM (2003) Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ 37:830–837CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fried GM (2008) FLS assessment of competency using simulated laparoscopic tasks. J Gastrointest Surg 12:210–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jirapinyo P, Kumar N, Thompson CC (2015) Validation of an endoscopic part-task training box as a skill assessment tool. Gastrointest Endosc 81:967–973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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):1834–1841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ritter EM, Cox TC, Trinca KD, Pearl JP (2013) Simulated colonoscopy objective performance evaluation (SCOPE): a non-computer-based tool for assessment of endoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 27:4073–4080CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trinca KD, Cox TC, Pearl JP, Ritter EM (2014) Validity evidence for the simulated colonoscopy objective performance evaluation scoring system. Am J Surg 207:218–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 46:735–744CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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):183–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oscar M. Crespin
    • 1
  • Allan Okrainec
    • 1
  • Andrea V. Kwong
    • 2
  • Ilay Habaz
    • 2
  • Maria Carolina Jimenez
    • 1
  • Peter Szasz
    • 1
  • Ethan Weiss
    • 2
  • Cecilia G. Gonzalez
    • 1
  • Jeffrey D. Mosko
    • 3
  • Louis W. C. Liu
    • 4
  • Lee L. Swanstrom
    • 5
    • 6
  • Silvana Perretta
    • 5
  • Eran Shlomovitz
    • 1
    • 7
  1. 1.Division of General SurgeryUniversity Health Network - University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Division of GastroenterologySt. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Division of GastroenterologyUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Institute for Image Guided Surgery IHU-StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  6. 6.Division of GI/MISThe Oregon ClinicPortlandUSA
  7. 7.Division of Interventional RadiologyUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations