Validation of a Hybrid Ex Vivo Integral Colon Simulator in Basic and Advanced Endoscopic Procedures
Introduction: Traditionally, training in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been performed directly on the patient under expert supervision, but this practice is not free of errors and risks to the patient. With the growing development of ever more complex therapeutic endoscopic techniques, an ex vivo hybrid integral colon simulator for the teaching of basic and advanced endoscopic procedures was a necessity. It would allow for the necessary repetitions required to overcome the learning curve, with the advantages of accessibility, low cost, reproducibility and with which the use of real accessories was feasible on human-like tissues and therefore, obtain effective training and the development of endoscopic techniques with no risk to the patient. Aim: To validate the ex vivo hybrid integral colon simulator in basic and advanced procedures by experts in colonoscopy. Material and Methods: We developed a questionnaire as a measuring instrument to determine the simulator´s realism. Twentynine (29) expert endoscopists were selected and each was exposed to the simulator and performs a colonoscopy and different therapeutic procedures. The questionnaire was then applied. Statistics: The sum of skill mastery and the overall mastery was calculated, defining “close to reality” as at least, a 90% of responses in its favor. To identify the specialty effect and the level of experience (total colonoscopies) in terms of realism and the simulator´s usefulness, we used the Chi2 test and logistic regression models, considering a p<0.05 statistically significant. Results: Twenty-nine (29) experts evaluated the simulator: 15 were gastroenterologists, 14 were surgeons, with an average of 2683 total colonoscopies. From a maximum overall score of 79 (100%), 9 experts (31%) gave it 79 points (100%), and 13 experts (44%) attributed it a score of 78 points (98%). In terms of the identification of anatomical structures and the simulator´s morphological characteristics, 96.6% considered them to be close to reality. As to the mastery of basic maneuvers and the evaluation of advanced procedures, 100% of the experts considered the simulator useful in terms of reproduction and close to reality. The categorization of realism, usefulness of the simulator by specialty and the number of total colonoscopies were analyzed and no difference was detected. Discussion: Although in the overall score 100% of the experts considered the simulator experience to be close to reality and useful (cutoff point of at least 90%), the following items had greater variability: identification of the ileocecal valve and the hepatic flexure, and the mucosal appearance. We concluded that the simulator is not dependent on the physician´s level of experience nor on the specialty. Conclusion: The simulator is realistic and useful when reproducing basic and advanced procedures, using real equipment and accessories. It is therefore a valuable tool when training in different therapeutic procedures that are a technical challenge and are associated with a broad range of complications if not successfully performed. It offers the possibility of repeating the required procedure to further develop or improve the student´s psychomotor abilities with no risk to the patient.