Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp 321–327 | Cite as

Development of a Novel Esophageal Stricture Simulation

  • Adam V. Haycock
  • James E. East
  • David Swain
  • Siwan Thomas-Gibson
Original Article

Abstract

Background and Study Aims Esophageal stricture dilatation has a significant morbidity and mortality and training can be difficult to obtain. The aim of the study was to investigate the face validity of a novel stricture simulation and evaluate its utility for training in balloon-dilatation technique. Methods Single-use stricture simulations were used to adapt a mechanical model for use in esophageal stricture dilatation. Face validity was evaluated using a questionnaire survey following a 40-min hands-on training session. Performance improvement was evaluated as part of a randomized blinded controlled trial. Results Face validity was established, with all trainees and instructors rating it as good or excellent overall and as adequately realistic or better in appearance. About 74% found it fairly or very realistic to dilate and 91% found it fairly or very useful for learning balloon-dilatation technique. Significant improvements in performance compared with controls were found following use of the simulation in a training episode. Conclusions The novel esophageal stricture simulation had good face validity and has been shown to improve performance when used for training in balloon-dilatation technique. Its use allows practice without risk to patients or the need for animal cadavers.

Keywords

Endoscopy Gastrointestinal Esophageal stricture Dilatation Training Simulation 

References

  1. 1.
    Quine MA, Bell GD, McCloy RF, Matthews HR. Prospective audit of perforation rates following upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in two regions of England. Br J Surg. 1995;82:530–533. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800820430.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cullinane M, Gray AJG, Hargraves CMK, et al. Scoping our practice. The 2004 report of the National Confidential Enquiry into patient outcome and death. www.ncepod.org.uk.
  3. 3.
    Hernandez LV, Jacobson JW, Harris MS. Comparison among the perforation rates of Maloney, balloon, and savary dilation of esophageal strictures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51:460–462. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(00)70448-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Riley SA, Attwood SE. Guidelines on the use of oesophageal dilatation in clinical practice. Gut. 2004;53(suppl 1):i1–i6. doi: 10.1136/gut.53.suppl_1.i1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jenkins JT, Glass G, Ballantyne S, Fullarton GM. Effect of MRCP introduction on ERCP practice: are there implications for service and training? Gut. 2006;55:1365–1366. doi: 10.1136/gut.2006.097055.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atkinson RJ, Donnelly MT. Oesophageal stenting: trends in training in the UK. Endoscopy. 2006;38:A162. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-921184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baillie J. ERCP training: for the few, not for all. Gut. 1999;45:9–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hochberger J, Matthes K, Maiss J, et al. Training with the compactEASIE biologic endoscopy simulator significantly improves hemostatic technical skill of gastroenterology fellows: a randomized controlled comparison with clinical endoscopy training alone. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:204–215. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(04)02471-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perry Y, Epperly MW, Fernando HC, et al. Photodynamic therapy induced esophageal stricture—an animal model: from mouse to pig. J Surg Res. 2005;123:67–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2004.05.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thompson JN. Corrosive esophageal injuries. II. An investigation of treatment methods and histochemical analysis of esophageal strictures in a new animal model. Laryngoscope. 1987;97:1191–1202.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schijven M, Jakimowicz J. Face-, expert, and referent validity of the Xitact LS500 laparoscopy simulator. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:1764–1770. doi: 10.1007/s00464-001-9229-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haycock AV, Thomas-Gibson S. Efficacy of hands-on skills training in therapeutic endoscopy: Results from a randomised blinded controlled study. Endoscopy. 2008;40(suppl 1):A5. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-967057.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bisschops R, Wilmer A, Tack J. A survey on gastroenterology training in Europe. Gut. 2002;50:724–729. doi: 10.1136/gut.50.5.724.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C, et al. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut. 2004;53:277–283. doi: 10.1136/gut.2003.016436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Egan JV, Baron TH, Adler DG, et al. Esophageal dilation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:755–760. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.02.031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Guidelines for the training, appraisal and assessment of trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eisen GM, Dominitz JA, Faigel DO, et al. Guidelines for advanced endoscopic training. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:846–848.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Axon AT, Aabakken L, Malfertheiner P, et al. Recommendations of the ESGE workshop on ethics in teaching and learning endoscopy. First European Symposium on Ethics in Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Kos, Greece, June 2003. Endoscopy. 2003;35:761–764. doi: 10.1055/s-2003-41586.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam V. Haycock
    • 1
  • James E. East
    • 1
  • David Swain
    • 1
  • Siwan Thomas-Gibson
    • 1
  1. 1.Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St. Mark’s HospitalImperial College LondonMiddlesexUK

Personalised recommendations