Virtual reality simulators for gastrointestinal endoscopy training

Table 1 Evaluation of virtual simulators for the training of novice endoscopists

Ref.	Simulator	Procedure	Groups	Outcome measurement	Result
Ende et al[23]	GI Mentor (plus a mechanical and an ex-vivo simulator)	Gastroscopy	Clinical plus simulator trainingClinical training onlySimulator training only	Skills evaluation scoreTime (s) to pass pylorus	Median score: 7 vs 6 vs 5 (P = NS)183 ± 65 vs 207 ± 61 vs 247 ± 66 (P = NS)
Ferlitsch et al[24]	GI Mentor	Gastroscopy	Simulator training before conventional trainingConventional training	Time (s) to reach duodenumPercentage of unaided examinations (after 10 endoscopies)	239 vs 310 (P < 0.000) 85% vs 72% (P < 0.01)
Ahlberg et al[25]	Accutouch simulator	Colonoscopy	Simulator groupControl group	Cecum reached during the first 10 colonoscopiesTime (min) to reach cecumPatient discomfort (estimated probability in group 2)	52% vs 19% (P = 0.0011)30 vs 40 (P = 0.037)2.27 (95%CI: 1.14-4.76)
Cohen et al[26]	GI Mentor	Colonoscopy	Simulator groupControl group	Competency after 100 cases Number of cases for reaching competency	Higher in group 1 (P < 0.0001)160 in both groups (P = NS)
Haycock et al[27]	Olympus simulator	Colonoscopy	Simulator groupOn patient trained group	Live colonoscopy casesCompletion ratesTime takenVirtual simulator casesCecum intubationTime (s) to cecum intubation	11% vs 7% (P = NS)20 min vs 20 min (P = NS)95% vs 70% (P < 0.01)407 vs 743 (P < 0.01)
Gerson et al[3]	Accutouch simulator	Sigmoidoscopy	Virtual simulator training (without on-patient training) On patient training group	Time (min) to complete the live caseLive cases that trainees completed independently	24 vs 24 (P = NS)29% vs 72% (P < 0.001)
Sedlack et al[31]	Accutouch simulator	Sigmoidoscopy	Simulator groupControl group	Patient discomfort score (1-10)Competence score to perform endoscopy independently (1-10)	1.3 vs 4 (P < 0.01)2.8 vs 8 (P = NS)

NS: Not significant.