Skip to main content
Log in

Expert benchmark for the GI Mentor IITM

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

There is increasing interest in the use of virtual-reality simulators in general surgery residency training. Many simulators lack a benchmark against which trainees can measure competence and skill.

Methods

Surgeons who had performed over 1,000 colonoscopies were evaluated on module 1, case 5 of the GI Mentor I or II™ virtual-reality endoscopy simulator (Simbionix, Cleveland). Participants were given 5 min to familiarize themselves with the simulator, and then performed the study case with standardized instructions. Metrics were recorded by using the previously calibrated simulator.

Results

Twenty-three surgeons (21 male, 2 female) participated. Mean height was 69.6 ± 2.6 inches, mean age 51 ± 9 years, median surgical glove size 7.5, and surgeons had 18.8 ± 10.1 years of practice, and did 8 ± 6 colonoscopies weekly. Ten participants had advanced training in endoscopy, laparoscopy or colorectal surgery; eight had used the simulator before, of whom six had used it once. Mean time to complete the study case was 13.6 ± 5.3 min and time to reach the cecum was 6.5 ± 4.3 min. Participants examined 92.3 ± 3.6% of the simulated colonic mucosa with a clear view of the lumen 89.5 ± 4.2% of the time. Total time the colon was looped was 22 ± 35 s (range 0–133 s). The overall efficiency of screening was 70.33 ± 23.45% (range 20–94%). Participants tended to mistake normal simulated colonic structures as pathology.

Conclusion

Performance on a virtual-reality endoscopic simulator has a wide amount of variability even among a group of experienced endoscopists. Expert benchmark tests should be performed on simulators that will be used for resident assessment prior to any attempts at certification of competence.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dunkin BJ (2003) Flexible endoscopy simulator. Semin Laparosc Surg 10:29–35

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Moorthy K, Munz Y, Jiwanji M, Bann S, Chang A, Darzi A (2004) Validity and reliability of a virtual-reality upper gastrointestinal simulator and cross validation using structured assessment of individual performance with video playback. Surg Endosc 18:328–333

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Clark JA, Volchok JA, Hazey JW, Sadighi PJ, Fanelli RD (2005) Initial experience using an endoscopic simulator to train surgical residents in flexible endoscopy in a community medical center residency program. Curr Surg 62:59–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lazar HL, DeLand EC, Tompkins RK (1980) Clinical performance versus in-training examinations as measures of surgical competence. Surgery 87:357–362

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Borlase BC, Bartle EJ, Moore EE (1985) Does the in-training examination correlate with clinical performance in surgery? Curr Surg 42:290–292

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wade TP, Andrus CH, Kaminski DL (1993) Evaluations of surgery resident performance correlate with success in board examinations. Surgery 113:644–648

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Felsher JJ, Olesevich M, Farres H, Rosen M, Fanning A, Dunkin BJ, Marks JM (2005) Validation of a flexible endoscopy simulator. Am J Surg 189:497–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferlitsch A, Glauninger P, Gupper A, Schillinger M, Haefner M, Gangl A, Schoefl R (2002) Evaluation of a virtual endoscopy simulator for training in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 34:698–702

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ritter EM, McClusky DA III, Lederman AB, Gallagher AG, Smith CD (2003) Objective psychomotor skills assessment of experienced and novice flexible endoscopists with a virtual-reality simulator. J Gastrointest Surg 7:871–877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Adamsen S, Funch-Jensen PM, Drewes AM, Rosenberg J, Grantcharov TP (2005) A comparative study of skills in virtual laparoscopy and endoscopy. Surg Endosc 19:229–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Eversbusch A, Grantcharov TP (2004) Learning curves and impact of psychomotor training on performance in simulated colonoscopy: a randomized trial using a virtual-reality endoscopy trainer. Surg Endosc 18:1514–1518

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Grantcharov TP, Carstensen L, Schulze S (2005) Objective assessment of gastrointestinal endoscopy skills using a virtual-reality simulator. JSLS 9(2):130–133

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Conor P. Delaney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Phitayakorn, R., Marks, J.M., Reynolds, H.L. et al. Expert benchmark for the GI Mentor IITM . Surg Endosc 23, 611–614 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0166-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0166-8

Keywords

Navigation