Format

Send to

Choose Destination

See 1 citation found by title matching your search:

Surg Endosc. 2016 Mar;30(3):1107-12. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4307-6. Epub 2015 Jul 3.

Validity evidence for a new portable, lower-cost platform for the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery skills test.

Author information

1
Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. carmenleandramueller@gmail.com.
2
Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. carmenleandramueller@gmail.com.
3
Montreal General Hospital, Room E19-125, 1650 Cedar Avenue, Montreal, QC, H3G 1A4, Canada. carmenleandramueller@gmail.com.
4
Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
5
Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
6
Division of General Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, IL, USA.
7
Division of General Surgery, University Hospitals Case Medical Centre, Cleveland, OH, USA.
8
Division of Endoscopic Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital System, Houston, TX, USA.
9
Division of General and Laparoendoscopic Surgery, University of Texas Health Sciences System, San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) examination measures the knowledge and skills required to perform safe flexible endoscopy. A potential limitation of the FES skills test is the size and cost of the simulator on which it was developed (GI Mentor II virtual reality endoscopy simulator; Simbionix LTD, Israel). A more compact and lower-cost alternative (GI Mentor Express) was developed to address this issue. The purpose of this study was to obtain evidence for the validity of scores obtained on the Express platform, so that it can be used for testing.

STUDY DESIGN:

General surgery residents at various levels of training and practicing endoscopists at five institutions participated. Each completed the five FES tasks on both simulator platforms in random order, with 3-14 days between tests. Scores were calculated using the same standardized computer-generated algorithm and compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient.

RESULTS:

There were 58 participants (mean age 32; 76% male) with a broad range of endoscopic experience. The mean (95% confidence interval) FES scores were 72 (67:77) on the GI Mentor II and 66 (60:71) on the Express. The correlation between scores on the two platforms was 0.86 (0.77:0.91; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION:

There is a high correlation between FES manual skills scores measured on the original platform and the new Express, providing evidence to support the use of the GI Mentor Express for FES testing.

KEYWORDS:

Assessment; Endoscopy; Fundamentals of endoscopic surgery

PMID:
26139481
DOI:
10.1007/s00464-015-4307-6
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center