Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy comprises both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures involving the luminal GI tract as well as the biliary tree, liver, and pancreas. GI endoscopy is challenging to learn, requiring both cognitive (nontechnical) and technical skills, and requires extensive practice to attain proficiency. Simulation-based training has been shown to assist trainees and young endoscopists in acquiring new skills and accelerating the learning curve. Moreover, simulation-based training creates an ideal environment for trainees to initially learn and practice skills while making mistakes with no risk to patients.This review, divided in two parts, offers a comprehensive summary of the different classes of simulators available for GI endoscopic training.In Part I, only mechanical simulators are reported and described. In Part II, animal simulators (ex vivo/in vivo) and virtual reality models are detailed, together with prototypes that are currently not commercially available.

Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are emerging technologies with significant potential in medical education and therapeutic interventions, particularly within gastroenterology. This review aims to explore the current applications of VR and AR in enhancing endoscopy training, procedural skills, and patient comfort, while also identifying their role in non-pharmacological pain management and pre-procedure education.

Extensive research has been conducted on the use of VR and AR in surgical and neurological fields, but their application in gastroenterology is still evolving. VR simulators provide realistic training environments, contributing to improved procedural skills and patient care. Additionally, VR has been shown to reduce patient discomfort and serve as an alternative to sedation during procedures like colonoscopies. AR, specifically in colonoscopies, has demonstrated potential in enhancing polyp detection by overlaying real-time digital information, leading to better diagnostic accuracy. Studies also suggest that VR can improve patient outcomes in functional gastrointestinal disorders and enhance pre-procedure education, increasing patient satisfaction. VR and AR hold significant promise in gastroenterology by advancing both educational and procedural practices. These technologies offer cost-effective, patient-friendly solutions that improve diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes. Continued research is essential to fully realize the benefits of VR and AR in gastroenterology, as these tools become more prevalent in clinical practice.

Simulation is an effective teaching method that improves learner competence and confidence. Optimizing group size balances efficiency without sacrificing efficacy. While simulation technology is widely used in medical education, no standard for learner group size exists. This study investigates the optimal group size for simulation, aiming to identify best practices that maximize efficiency and efficacy in learning environments.

This systematic review adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. A team of emergency medicine educators screened citations and reviewed relevant full-text articles. Inclusion criteria focused on group sizes with the best outcomes. Quality assessment employed the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument approach to evaluate evidence.

Thirty-four articles were identified; 17 were deemed relevant for full-text review. The studies varied in methods, including prospective and retrospective reviews, mixed methods, and randomized controlled trials. Smaller groups improved outcomes, with an ideal size dependent on learning objectives. Five studies suggested groups of up to 4 learners were optimal, with mixed results on the exact number. One study identified 6 as the ideal group size. Debriefing was effective in larger groups, while procedural skills were best taught in groups of 2 to 4 learners.

This review suggests smaller group sizes are more effective for efficiency, knowledge, and confidence. For procedural skills, groups of 2 to 4 are most effective, and effectiveness declines with more than 6 participants. Smaller groups allow for more hands-on learning and cognitive engagement. While clinical skills can be taught in larger groups, learners favor smaller groups for debriefing and complex scenarios. Effective curriculum planning should account for available resources, the type of simulation, and the material being taught, with group sizes adjusted to optimize learning outcomes.

Rectal examination through proctoscopy or rigid sigmoidoscopy is a common investigation in clinical practice. It is an important diagnostic tool for the workup and management of anorectal pathologies. Performing the examination can be daunting not only for patients but also for junior doctors. There are associated risks with the procedure, such as pain, diagnostic failure, and perforation of the bowel. Simulation-based training is recognised as an important adjunct in clinical education. It allows students and doctors to practice skills and techniques at their own pace in a risk-free environment. These skills can then be transferred to and developed further in clinical practice. There is extensive research published regarding the role of simulation-based training in endoscopy, however, we identified no published study regarding simulation-based training in rigid sigmoidoscopy or proctoscopy. This study aims to establish the initial face, content, and construct validity of a tool-based visual anorectal examination advanced simulator model for proctoscopy and rigid sigmoidoscopy. This innovative, highly realistic simulated environment aims to enhance the training of healthcare professionals and improve the efficiency of detecting and diagnosing distal colorectal disease.

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1:  ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2:  ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4:  Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Conventional medical training routes of bronchoscopy may decrease patients' comfort and increase procedure-related morbidity. Virtual reality (VR)-based bronchoscopy is a beneficial and safe solution for teaching trainees. The aim of this systematic review was to study the effectiveness of VR-based bronchoscopy simulators on the learning outcomes of medical trainees.

Well-known sources (i.e., Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and Medline via PubMed) were systematically searched using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines on December, 2021. Peer-reviewed English papers that used VR-based simulation for bronchoscopy training were included. The articles that were studying other technologies, or those that were unrelated to the topic, were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists for quasi-experimental studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Out of 343 studies, 8 of them met our inclusion criteria. An appropriate control group and statistical analysis were the most common and unavoidable sources of bias in included non-RCTs, and lack of blinding in participants was the most common source of bias in RCTs. The included studies evaluated learning outcomes regarding dexterity (N = 5), speed (N = 3), the accuracy of procedures (N = 1), and the need for verbal assistance (N = 1). Based on the results, 100% (5/5) and 66% (2/3) of studies showed that the use of VR-based simulation on the learning outcomes of medical trainees led to improvement in manual ability (i.e., dexterity) and swiftness of execution (i.e., speed in performance), respectively. Additionally, improving the accuracy of subjects' performance, and reducing the need for verbal guidance and physical assistance was reported in studies that evaluated these variables.

VR bronchoscopy simulator as a training method for teaching medical trainees, especially for novices has the potential to improve medical trainees' performance and reduce complications. Further studies are needed to evaluate the positive effects of VR-based simulation on the learning outcomes of medical trainees.

The primary objective of postgraduate medical education is to produce specialists who provide highest quality of health care to suffering patients and return them to the community in the most functional capability. The secondary objective is to advance the cause of science through research and training. A postgraduate, after undergoing the required training in anaesthesiology, should be able to recognise the health needs of the community and apply cognitive and psychomotor skills to provide optimal anaesthetic care. Additionally, the anaesthesiologist should function as a perioperative physician being adept in perioperative care, pain medicine and critical care medicine. The 3-year postgraduate curriculum comprises experience in basic, subspeciality and advanced anaesthesia training. This structured training programme with a curriculum of increasing difficulty and learning incorporates ascending grades of difficulty, posing a challenge to the trainee's intellect and technical skills. Experience in basic anaesthesia training is aimed to lay stress on basic and fundamental aspects of anaesthetic management. Subspeciality anaesthesia training is needed to lay stress on the theory, special considerations and practice of subdisciplines of anaesthesiology. This document proposes a modular-structured, continuous, objectively evaluated, systematic training process that is monitored frequently and periodically, such that the trainee, at the end of training, is capable of appropriate anaesthetic management of disease conditions in a wide variety of situations.

Assessment is necessary to ensure both attainment and maintenance of competency in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, and this can be accomplished through self-assessment. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of self-assessment among GI endoscopists.

This was an individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that investigated self-assessment of endoscopic competency. We performed a systematic search of the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Wiley Cochrane CENTRAL, and ProQuest Education Resources Information Center. We included studies if they were primary investigations of self-assessment accuracy in GI endoscopy that used statistical analyses to determine accuracy. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies using a limits of agreement (LoA) approach to meta-analysis of Bland-Altman studies.

After removing duplicate entries, we screened 7138 records. After full-text review, we included 16 studies for qualitative analysis and three for meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, we found that the LoA were wide (-41.0 % to 34.0 %) and beyond the clinically acceptable difference. Subgroup analyses found that both novice and intermediate endoscopists had wide LoA (-45.0 % to 35.1 % and -54.7 % to 46.5 %, respectively) and expert endoscopists had narrow LoA (-14.2 % to 21.4 %).

GI endoscopists are inaccurate in self-assessment of their endoscopic competency. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that novice and intermediate endoscopists were inaccurate, while expert endoscopists have accurate self-assessment. While we advise against the sole use of self-assessment among novice and intermediate endoscopists, expert endoscopists may wish to integrate it into their practice.

Joint Advisory Group (JAG) certification in endoscopy is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update standards for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

A modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety representation from experts and trainees. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on FS training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by national stakeholders for incorporation into the JAG FS certification pathway.

In total, 41 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (17), assessment of competence (7) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (A) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (B) minimum procedure count ≥175; (C) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (D) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Lower gastrointestinal Endoscopy course; (E) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedural skill (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skill (SMSA level 1); (F) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool and (G) successful performance in summative DOPS.

The UK standards for training and certification in FS have been updated to support training, uphold standards in FS and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

The reperfused human cadaver is a validated simulator for surgery. We aimed to use it as a colonoscopy simulator.

Novices, intermediates and skilled participants in gastrointestinal endoscopy were included. They performed one colonoscopy on a reperfused human cadaver and reaching rates, time, and length needed to reach anatomical landmarks were reported for construct validity analysis. We also assessed our model realism (SRS survey), educational content (CVS survey) and task load (NASA-TLX index). Score items were collected and defined as "favorable" when items were rated ≥ 5/7 with an inter-quartile range (IQR) overlapping four, and "very favorable" when rated ≥ 5/7 with an IQR excluding four (neutral). Primary endpoints were the rectosigmoid junction (RSJ) reaching rate and the descending colon (DC) reaching time. Secondary objectives were SRS, CVS and NASA-TLX questionnaire results.

A total of 11 skilled participants, 5 intermediates and 8 novices were included. Skilled participants reached RSJ more often than novice and intermediary groups, respectively, 100%, 80% and 75% without differing significantly. They reached DC more frequently (100% for skilled, 80% for intermediates and 50% for novices, p = 0.018). The median time to reach RSJ (59, 272 and 686 s for skilled, intermediates and novices group, respectively) and DC (90, 534 and 1360 s for skilled, intermediates and novices) was significantly shorter for skilled participants (both p < .01). Nineteen out of the 22 items composing the realism survey obtained "very favorable" and "favorable" scores. Educational content was designated as "very favorable". Mental, physical, and technical demands were gradually higher the lower the initial level of experience.

Reperfused human cadaver model has the potential to be valid simulation tool for diagnostic colonoscopy training.

A previous study suggested that psychomotor training improves the performance on colonoscopy. Since then, newer exercises have been included in the latest generation of GI Mentor®. In order to optimize a colonoscopy training program, we aimed to determine the impact of 3 virtual exercises in simulated colonoscopy skills.

This was a prospective and randomized study. Nineteen residents completed a pre-training questionnaire and a colonoscopy trial before randomization in a study group (n = 10) that performed three exercises (Endobubble I, Navigation I, and Mucosal Evaluation I) until they achieved expert level, and a control group (n = 9). Both groups performed 10 repetitions of a simulated colonoscopy and were assessed on a final case. Learning curves and skills transfer were assessed by four parameters: mucosal surface examined (%), time to reach the cecum (s), screening efficiency (%), and time the patient was in pain (%). We also evaluated the construct validity for the exercises.

Construct validity was confirmed for Endobubble I and verified in Navigation I (experts were faster than novices; 5 vs. 7 s, p = 0.040), but not for Mucosal Evaluation I. Analyzing the learning curves and performance in the 10 repetitions, the study group reached the cecum faster (278 vs. 356 s, p = 0.035) and achieved a higher screening efficiency (83% vs. 75%, p = 0.019). Concerning skills transfer, the control group took longer to reach the cecum (241 vs. 292 s, p = 0.021) and the percentage of time the patient was in pain was higher (6% vs. 9%, p = 0.021). General performances of the study group had smaller interquartile variations.

Psychomotor training has a significant impact on the homogeneous acquisition and assimilation of colonoscopy skills. Endobubble I and Navigation I should be considered in the training programs for novices.

Current evidence supports the use of virtual reality (VR) simulation-based training for novice endoscopists. However, there is still a need for a standardized induction programme which ensures sufficient preparation, with knowledge and basic skills, before their approach to patient-based training. We designed a structured progressive programme in upper endoscopy and colonoscopy and aimed to determine its impact on cognitive and technical performance.

Prospective, multicentre study, focused on "Endoscopy I, 2018," a course with a theoretical and a hands-on module (20 h) in the GI Mentor II®. Gastroenterology residents of the 1st year were enrolled. A pre-test and test were applied to evaluate the cognitive component, and a pre-training and post-training esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy VR cases were used to evaluate the technical component. The hands-on training included psychomotor exercises (Navigation I, Endobubble I), 4 EGD, and 4 colonoscopy VR cases. The metrics applied for technical skills evaluation were time to reach the second portion of duodenum (D2)/cecum (seconds), efficiency of screening (%), and time the patient was in pain (%).

Twenty-three participants were included, majority female (67%), 26 ± 0.7 years old. Comparing the pre-test versus test, the cognitive score significantly improved (11/15 vs. 14/15; p < 0.001). Considering the technical assessment after training: in EGD, the time to D2 was significantly lower (193 vs. 63 s; p < 0.001), and the efficiency of screening significantly better (64 vs. 91%; p < 0.001); in colonoscopy, the time to reach the cecum was significantly lower (599 vs. 294 s; p = 0.001), the time the patient was in pain was significantly lower (27 vs. 10%; p = 0.005), and the efficiency of screening had a tendency towards improvement (50 vs. 68%; p = 0.062).

The proposed training curriculum in basic endoscopy for novices is aligned with international recommendations and demonstrated a significant impact on cognitive and technical skills learning achievements.

To evaluate the training of computed tomography (CT)-guided periradicular therapy in a realistic simulation environment and to derive recommendations for a training curriculum.

A novel simulation environment including the use of a 3D printed, patient-mimicking phantom was used to train medical students to perform CT-guided periradicular therapy of the lumbar spine. Seventeen participants underwent three training sessions (day 0, day 7, and after day 28) with six procedures per session. Procedure duration and the number of fluoroscopy image acquisitions were recorded. Participants' performance was assessed by an independent investigator using a six-point checklist scale (0 = lowest, 6 = highest). In addition, participants self-evaluated their skills and the simulation training in questionnaires.

Procedure durations and image acquisitions decreased after one training session (p < 0.001) without further improvement thereafter (p > 0.6). They also decreased within training sessions and were lowest after five procedures in all sessions. Performance scores improved after the first session to nearly perfect scores in the second session (mean 5.7; 95%CI: 5.5-6.0; p < 0.001) and decreased again in the third session (mean 4.9; 95%CI: 4.6-5.3; p = 0.008). Participants were satisfied with their training progress and felt adequately prepared to perform CT-guided periradicular therapies on patients after the training.

Simulation-based training of CT-guided periradicular therapy in a realistic environment is effective and should ideally be performed with one training session consisting of five procedures shortly before treating the first patient.

Reports evaluating simulation-based sigmoidoscopy training among nurses are scarce. The aim of this prospective nonrandomized study was to assess the performance of nurses in simulated sigmoidoscopy training and the potential impact on their performance of endoscopy unit experience, general professional experience, and skills in manual activities requiring coordinated maneuvers. Forty-four subjects were included: 12 nurses with (Group A) and 14 nurses without endoscopy unit experience (Group B) as well as 18 senior nursing students (Group C). All received simulator training in sigmoidoscopy. Participants were evaluated with respect to predetermined validated metrics. Skills in manual activities requiring coordinated maneuvers were analyzed to draw possible correlations with their performance. The total population required a median number of 5 attempts to achieve all predetermined goals. Groups A and C outperformed Group B regarding the number of attempts needed to achieve the predetermined percentage of visualized mucosa (p = .017, p = .027, respectively). Furthermore, Group A outperformed Group B regarding the predetermined duration of procedure (p = .046). A tendency was observed for fewer attempts needed to achieve the overall successful endoscopy in both Groups A and C compared with Group B. Increased score on playing stringed instruments was associated with decreased total time of procedure (rs = -.34, p = .03) and with decreased number of total attempts for successful endoscopy (rs = -.31, p = .046). This study suggests that training nurses and nursing students in simulated sigmoidoscopy is feasible by means of a proper training program. Experience in endoscopy unit and skills in manual activities have a positive impact on the training process.

Competency in flexible endoscopy is a major goal of small animal internal medicine residency training programs. Hands-on laboratories to teach entry-level skills have traditionally used anesthetized laboratory dogs (live dog laboratory [LDL]). Virtual-reality endoscopy trainers (VRET) are used for this purpose in human medicine with the clear benefits of avoiding live animal use, decreasing trainee stress, and allowing repeated, independent training sessions. However, there are currently no commercially available veterinary endoscopy simulators. The purpose of the study was to determine whether a human VRET can be a reasonable alternative to a LDL for teaching early veterinary endoscopy skills. Twelve veterinarians with limited or no endoscopy experience underwent training with a VRET (n = 6) or a LDL (n = 6), performed two recorded esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) on anesthetized dogs for evaluation purposes (outcomes laboratory), and then underwent training with the alternative method. Participants completed questionnaires before any training and following each training session. No significant differences were found between training methods based on: measured parameters from the outcomes laboratory, including duration of time to perform EGD; evaluators' assessment of skills; and, assessment of skills through blinded review of the esophageal portion of EGD recordings. The VRET was less stressful for participants than the LDL (p = .02). All participants found that the VRET was a useful and acceptable alternative to the LDL for training of early endoscopy skills. Based on this limited study, VRET can serve as a reasonable alternative to LDL for teaching endoscopy skills to veterinarians.

Conventional training in bronchoscopy is performed either on patients (apprenticeship model) or phantoms. While the former is associated with increased rate of patient complications, procedure time, and amount of sedation, the latter does not offer any form of feedback to the trainee. This paper presents a study which investigates whether a bronchoscopy guidance system may be a helpful tool for training of novice bronchoscopists.

A randomized controlled study with 48 medical students was carried out with two different groups (control and test group, each N = 24). Whereas the control group performed a conventional bronchoscopy on phantom the test group carried out an Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy (ENB) for tracking of the bronchoscopal tip in the bronchial system. All volunteers had a common task: to perform a complete and systematic diagnostic bronchoscopy within 10 min.

The test group examined significantly more lobes than the control group (p = 0.009). Due to the real-time feedback of the system, all students of test group felt more confident having analyzed the entire lung. Additionally, they were unanimous that the system would be helpful during the next bronchoscopy.

In sum, this technology may play a major role in unsupervised learning by improving accuracy, dexterity but above all by increasing the confidence of novices, students as well as physicians. Due to good acceptance, there may be a great potential of this tool in clinical routine.

Surgical training has traditionally involved teaching trainees in the operating room. However, intraoperative training is time-intensive and exposes patients to greater risks. Touch Surgery (TS) is an application that uses animation to provide simulation training via cognitive task analysis as an adjunct to intraoperative training.

Forty students were recruited and randomly allocated to either a control or intervention group. Each group received the same preparation before intervention, including a 10-min introduction to laparoscopic equipment and a 15-min educational tutorial on laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The participants then received training via either TS (intervention) or written information (control). Their performance was compared using a validated scoring tool on a porcine laparoscopic cholecystectomy model. Significance was defined as P < 0.050.

In total, n = 22 and n = 18 participants were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between age (P = 0.320), year of medical school (P = 0.322), handedness (P = 1.000), or gender (P = 0.360) of the groups. The overall mean performance score was higher for intervention (mean ± SD = 41.9 ± 22.5) than control (mean ± SD = 24.7 ± 19.6; P = 0.016). There was no significant difference between scores for each intraoperative segment between the intervention and control group (P > 0.050).

This study demonstrates that TS is effective for providing cognitive training in laparoscopic cholecystectomies to medical students. It is likely that this effect will be seen across modules and other platforms that use cognitive task analysis alongside high-fidelity animation. Further work is necessary to extend this to other surgical procedures for evaluating its longitudinal effectiveness.

Endoscopy has traditionally been taught with novices practicing on real patients under the supervision of experienced endoscopists. Recently, the growing awareness of the need for patient safety has brought simulation training to the forefront. Simulation training can provide trainees with the chance to practice their skills in a learner-centred, risk-free environment. It is important to ensure that skills gained through simulation positively transfer to the clinical environment. This updated review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) simulation training in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

To determine whether virtual reality simulation training can supplement and/or replace early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) in diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and/or sigmoidoscopy for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience.

We searched the following health professions, educational, and computer databases until 12 July 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL, AMED, ERIC, Education Full Text, CBCA Education, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Abstracts in New Technology and Engineering, Computer and Information Systems Abstracts, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. We also searched the grey literature until November 2017.

We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing VR endoscopy simulation training versus any other method of endoscopy training with outcomes measured on humans in the clinical setting, including conventional patient-based training, training using another form of endoscopy simulation, or no training. We also included trials comparing two different methods of VR training.

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials, and extracted data on the trial characteristics and outcomes. We pooled data for meta-analysis where participant groups were similar, studies assessed the same intervention and comparator, and had similar definitions of outcome measures. We calculated risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes when studies reported the same or different outcome measures, respectively. We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.

We included 18 trials (421 participants; 3817 endoscopic procedures). We judged three trials as at low risk of bias. Ten trials compared VR training with no training, five trials with conventional endoscopy training, one trial with another form of endoscopy simulation training, and two trials compared two different methods of VR training. Due to substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity across our four comparisons, we did not perform a meta-analysis for several outcomes. We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, low, or very low due to risk of bias, imprecision, and heterogeneity.Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus no training: There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect on composite score of competency (MD 3.10, 95% CI -0.16 to 6.36; 1 trial, 24 procedures; low-quality evidence). Composite score of competency was based on 5-point Likert scales assessing seven domains: atraumatic technique, colonoscope advancement, use of instrument controls, flow of procedure, use of assistants, knowledge of specific procedure, and overall performance. Scoring range was from 7 to 35, a higher score representing a higher level of competence. Virtual reality training compared to no training likely provides participants with some benefit, as measured by independent procedure completion (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.26; 6 trials, 815 procedures; moderate-quality evidence). We evaluated overall rating of performance (MD 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75; 1 trial, 18 procedures), visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.00; 1 trial, 55 procedures), performance time (MD -0.20 minutes, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.30; 2 trials, 29 procedures), and patient discomfort (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.35; 2 trials, 145 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. No trials reported procedure-related complications or critical flaws (e.g. bleeding, luminal perforation) (3 trials, 550 procedures; moderate-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus conventional patient-based training: One trial reported composite score of competency but did not provide sufficient data for quantitative analysis. Virtual reality training compared to conventional patient-based training resulted in fewer independent procedure completions (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; 2 trials, 174 procedures; low-quality evidence). We evaluated performance time (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.80; 2 trials, 34 procedures), overall rating of performance (MD -0.90, 95% CI -4.40 to 2.60; 1 trial, 16 procedures), and visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.0, 95% CI -6.02 to 6.02; 1 trial, 18 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. Virtual reality training in combination with conventional training appears to be advantageous over VR training alone. No trials reported any procedure-related complications or critical flaws (3 trials, 72 procedures; very low-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus another form of endoscopy simulation: Based on one study, there were no differences between groups with respect to composite score of competency, performance time, and visualisation of mucosa. Virtual reality training in combination with another form of endoscopy simulation training did not appear to confer any benefit compared to VR training alone.Two methods of virtual reality training: Based on one study, a structured VR simulation-based training curriculum compared to self regulated learning on a VR simulator appears to provide benefit with respect to a composite score evaluating competency. Based on another study, a progressive-learning curriculum that sequentially increases task difficulty provides benefit with respect to a composite score of competency over the structured VR training curriculum.

VR simulation-based training can be used to supplement early conventional endoscopy training for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. However, we found insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of VR simulation-based training as a replacement for early conventional endoscopy training. The quality of the current evidence was low due to inadequate randomisation, allocation concealment, and/or blinding of outcome assessment in several trials. Further trials are needed that are at low risk of bias, utilise outcome measures with strong evidence of validity and reliability, and examine the optimal nature and duration of training.

Technical skill acquisition for rare procedures can be challenging given the few real-life training opportunities. In situ simulation (ISS), a training technique that takes place in the actual workplace, is a promising method to promote environmental fidelity for rare procedures. This study evaluated a simulation-based technical skill curriculum for cricothyroidotomy using deliberate practice, followed by an ISS evaluation session.

Twenty emergency medicine residents participated in a two-part curriculum to improve cricothryoidotomy performance. A pretest established participant baseline technical skill. The training session consisted of two parts, didactic teaching followed by deliberate practice using a task-training manikin. A posttest consisted of an unannounced, high-fidelity ISS, during an emergency department shift. The primary outcome was the mean performance time between the pretest and posttest sessions. Skill performance was also evaluated using a checklist scale and global rating scale.

Cricothyroidotomy performance time improved significantly from pretest to posttest sessions (mean difference, 59 seconds; P < 0.0001). Both checklist and global rating scales improved significantly from the pretest to the posttest with a mean difference of 1.82 (P = 0.002) and 6.87 (P = 0.0025), respectively. Postcourse survey responses were favorable for both the overall curriculum experience and the unannounced ISS.

This pilot study demonstrated that unannounced ISS is feasible and can be used to effectively measure cricothyroidotomy performance among EM residents. After a two-part training session consisting of didactic learning and deliberate practice, improved cricothyroidotomy skill performance was observed during an unannounced ISS in the emergency department. The integration of ISS in cricothyroidotomy training represents a promising approach; however, further study is needed to establish its role.

Literature on the effectiveness of simulation-based medical education programs for caring for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients is limited.

To improve coordination and door-to-needle (DTN) time for AIS care, we implemented a stroke simulation training program for neurology residents and nursing staff in a comprehensive stroke center.

Acute stroke simulation training was implemented for first-year neurology residents in July 2011. Simulations were standardized using trained live actors, who portrayed stroke vignettes in the presence of a board-certified vascular neurologist. A debriefing of each resident's performance followed the training. The hospital stroke registry was also used for retrospective analysis. The study population was defined as all patients treated with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator for AIS between October 2008 and September 2014.

We identified 448 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Simulation training independently predicted reduction in DTN time by 9.64 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] -15.28 to -4.01, P = .001) after controlling for age, night/day shift, work week versus weekend, and blood pressure at presentation (> 185/110). Systolic blood pressure higher than 185 was associated with a 14.28-minute increase in DTN time (95% CI 3.36-25.19, P = .011). Other covariates were not associated with any significant change in DTN time.

Integration of simulation based-medical education for AIS was associated with a 9.64-minute reduction in DTN time.

Patient comfort is an important part of endoscopy and reflects procedure quality and endoscopist technique. Using the validated, Nurse Assisted Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS), this study aimed to determine whether the introduction of NAPCOMS would affect sedation use by endoscopists.

The study was conducted over 3 phases. Phase One and Two consisted of 8 weeks of endoscopist blinded and aware data collection, respectively. Data in Phase Three was collected over a 5-month period and scores fed back to individual endoscopists on a monthly basis.

NAPCOMS consists of 3 domains - pain, sedation, and global tolerability. Comparison of Phase One and Two, showed no significant differences in sedative use or NAPCOMS. Phase Three data showed a decline in fentanyl use between individual months ( P  = 0.035), but no change in overall NAPCOMS. Procedures involving trainees were found to use more midazolam ( P  = 0.01) and fentanyl ( P  = 0.01), have worse NAPCOMS scores, and resulted in longer procedure duration ( P  < 0.001). Data comparing gastroenterologists and general surgeons showed increased fentanyl use ( P  = 0.037), decreased midazolam use ( P  = 0.001), and more position changes ( P  = 0.002) among gastroenterologists.

The introduction of a patient comfort scoring system resulted in a decrease in fentanyl use, although with minimal clinical significance. Additional studies are required to determine the role of patient comfort scores in quality control in endoscopy. Procedures completed with trainees used more sedation, were longer, and had worse NAPCOMS scores, the implications of which, for teaching hospitals and training programs, will need to be further considered.

To explore the effect of adding simulation-based transvaginal ultrasound training to trainees' clinical training compared with only clinical training on quality of and efficiency of care.

Simulation-based ultrasound training may be an effective adjunct to clinical training, but no studies have examined its effects on quality and efficiency of care.

Trainees from 4 University Hospitals in East Denmark were included (N = 54). Participants were randomized to either simulation-based ultrasound training and clinical training (intervention group, n = 28), or to clinical training only (control group, n = 26).The primary outcome was patient-reported discomfort during transvaginal ultrasound examinations performed by study participants. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported perceived safety and confidence in ultrasound provider. Finally, the need for trainee supervision or repeated patient examinations was recorded.

In total, 1150 patient ratings were collected. The intervention was associated with a reduction of patient discomfort by 18.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 10.7-25.5; P < 0.001), and with a 7.9% (95% CI, 0.5-14.7; P = 0.04) increase in perceived safety. The intervention group participants received 11.1% (95% CI, 2.5-18.9) higher scores on patients' confidence compared with control group participants (P = 0.01). When the number of days of clinical training was doubled, the odds for trainee supervision or repeated patient examination was reduced by 45.3% (95% CI, 33.5-55.1) and 19.8% (95% CI, 4.1-32.9) in the intervention and control group, respectively (P = 0.005).

Simulation-based ultrasound training improved quality of care and reduced the need for repeated patient examination and trainee supervision.

Resident surgical education and technical skills may be enhanced with deliberate practice-based learning. Deliberate practice methods, such as simulation-based training and formal skills-based assessments, allow for trainees to repeatedly practice a defined task with expert supervision and feedback.

The authors sought to characterize how surgical skills are taught and assessed in dermatology residency, with an emphasis on whether deliberate practice methods are incorporated in the surgical curriculum.

A survey was administered to program directors at 117 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved dermatology residency programs during 2013 to 2014.

A total of 42 responses (36%) were collected. Over half of programs (57%) devote 10 to 30 hours each year to surgical didactics. Sixty-nine percent of programs use simulation models, and 62% of programs use formal assessment-guided feedback in evaluating surgical skills. Residents most commonly assume the role of primary surgeon in excisional surgery (100%) and less commonly in graft and flap reconstruction (52% and 52%, respectively). Twenty-nine percent of residents are the primary surgeons in Mohs micrographic surgery.

Dermatology residency programs are incorporating deliberate practice-based tenets in the surgical curriculum. These results provide a benchmark for programs to assess and improve the quality of dermatologic surgery training.

Simulator-based gastrointestinal endoscopy training has gained acceptance over the last decades and has been extensively studied. Several types of simulators have been validated and it has been demonstrated that the use of simulators in the early training setting accelerates the learning curve in acquiring basic skills. Current GI endoscopy simulators lack the degree of realism that would be necessary to provide training to achieve full competency or to be applicable in certification. Virtual Reality and mechanical simulators are commonly used in basic flexible endoscopy training, whereas ex vivo and in vivo models are used in training the most advanced endoscopic procedures. Validated models for the training of more routine therapeutic interventions like polypectomy, EMR, stenting and haemostasis are lacking or scarce and developments in these areas should be encouraged.

Training procedural skills in GI endoscopy once focused on threshold numbers. As threshold numbers poorly reflect individual competence, the focus gradually shifts towards a more individual approach. Tools to assess and document individual learning progress are being developed and incorporated in dedicated training curricula. However, there is a lack of consensus and training guidelines differ worldwide, which reflects uncertainties on optimal set-up of a training programme.

The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the currently available literature for the use of training and assessment methods in GI endoscopy. Second, we aimed to identify the role of simulator-based training as well as the value of continuous competence assessment in patient-based training. Third, we aimed to propose a structured training curriculum based on the presented evidence.

A literature search was carried out in the available medical and educational literature databases. The results were systematically reviewed and studies were included using a predefined protocol with independent assessment by two reviewers and a final consensus round.

The literature search yielded 5846 studies. Ninety-four relevant studies on simulators, assessment methods, learning curves and training programmes for GI endoscopy met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven studies on simulator validation were included. Good validity was demonstrated for four simulators. Twenty-three studies reported on simulator training and learning curves, including 17 randomised control trials. Increased performance on a virtual reality (VR) simulator was shown in all studies. Improved performance in patient-based assessment was demonstrated in 14 studies. Four studies reported on the use of simulators for assessment of competence levels. Current simulators lack the discriminative power to determine competence levels in patient-based endoscopy. Eight out of 14 studies on colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endosonography reported on learning curves in patient-based endoscopy and proved the value of this approach for measuring performance. Ten studies explored the numbers needed to gain competence, but the proposed thresholds varied widely between them. Five out of nine studies describing the development and evaluation of assessment tools for GI endoscopy provided insight into the performance of endoscopists. Five out of seven studies proved that intense training programmes result in good performance.

The use of validated VR simulators in the early training setting accelerates the learning of practical skills. Learning curves are valuable for the continuous assessment of performance and are more relevant than threshold numbers. Future research will strengthen these conclusions by evaluating simulation-based as well as patient-based training in GI endoscopy. A complete curriculum with the assessment of competence throughout training needs to be developed for all GI endoscopy procedures.

Upper and lower endoscopy is an important tool that is being utilized more frequently by general surgeons. Training in therapeutic endoscopic techniques has become a mandatory requirement for general surgery residency programs in the United States. The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery has been developed to train and assess competency in these advanced techniques. Simulation has been shown to increase the skill and learning curve of trainees in other surgical disciplines. Several types of endoscopy simulators are commercially available; mechanical trainers, animal based, and virtual reality or computer-based simulators all have their benefits and limitations. However they have all been shown to improve trainee's endoscopic skills. Endoscopic simulators will play a critical role as part of a comprehensive curriculum designed to train the next generation of surgeons. We reviewed recent literature related to the various types of endoscopic simulators and their use in an educational curriculum, and discuss the relevant findings.

Although simulation-based bronchoscopy has been shown to be an effective training modality, formal assessment should still be performed as new technology emerges. We sought to validate a simulator in essential bronchoscopic tasks, and survey perceptions of bronchoscopists on simulation.

A cohort study at 2 medical centers used 3 groups to assess construct validity of the Simbionix Bronchoscopy Simulator: 7 first-year fellows with <10 bronchoscopies each (novice), 6 pulmonologists with 200 to 1000 bronchoscopies each (experienced), and 7 pulmonologists with >1000 bronchoscopies each (expert). Participants were tested in 4 tasks (1: scope manipulation, 2: guided anatomic navigation, 3: airway anatomy, and 4: lymph node anatomy). Participants were scored and surveyed on their impressions of simulation. The means and Kruskal-Wallis test among groups were compared by task item (P<0.05).

There were statistically significant differences in mean ranks among groups for tasks 1 and 3. For task 1, final score, time, mid-lumen time, and wall hits were discriminative (P=0.006, 0.006, 0.012, and 0.014, respectively). For task 3, time, bronchial segments identified, bronchial segments incorrectly identified, and bronchial segments skipped were discriminative (P=0.04, 0.012, 0.013, and 0.013, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference for task 2 and task 4. All participants agreed that simulation training is helpful and should be incorporated into bronchoscopic training.

The simulator demonstrated validity in differentiating skill in scope manipulation and airway anatomy, but did not discriminate skill levels in anatomic orientation or identification of lymph nodes. Bronchoscopy simulation was viewed as helpful by all levels and should be considered before performance on patients.

Flexible nasolaryngoscopy is a key diagnostic procedure used in many specialities. Simulation-based teaching is beneficial for endoscopy training, but it is expensive. This study assessed whether an inexpensive simulation model is an effective training method for flexible nasolaryngoscopy.

A three-armed, randomised, controlled trial was performed. One group received no simulation training, while two others were trained with either a high-cost or a low-cost model. All candidates then performed flexible nasolaryngoscopy on a volunteer. Their ability to perform this task was assessed by the patient discomfort score and time taken by a blinded expert.

Simulation-based teaching reduced patient discomfort and improved candidate skill level. Low-cost model training did not have a negative effect when compared with high-cost model training.

Simulated flexible nasolaryngoscopy training may be more accessible with the use of an effective low-cost model.

In 2011, multiple gastroenterology societies published a position statement expressing concern over the American Board of Surgery guidelines regarding endoscopy education. Their position asserted that the American Board of Surgery's guidelines were inadequate to produce competency and the requirements should be similar to those adopted by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This assertion failed to take into account the increasing use of simulation in surgical and endoscopic education.

Surgery residents were required to complete a self-paced endoscopy simulation curriculum. A retrospective review of all patients undergoing colonoscopy at a single institution over a 6-month period was then undertaken. Specifically, the quality measures associated with colonoscopy including the cecal intubation rate and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) were compared between those colonoscopies that were performed by faculty gastroenterologists and general surgery residents.

In total, 818 colonoscopies were performed during the study period-598 were performed by the gastroenterology service (GI) and 220 were performed by general surgery residents on the surgery service (GS). Baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. Cecal intubation rates for GI and GS were 98.4% and 93.5% respectively. ADRs were similar between the groups (GI-29.8% in men and 15.3% in women; GS-26.8% in men and 18.7% in women). GI was found to perform biopsies at a higher rate than GS: 0.92 vs 0.62 (not significant, NS). GS had a higher rate of adenomas biopsied: 0.42 vs 0.32 (NS).

Following endoscopy simulation training, general surgery residents, under the supervision of surgical staff, are capable of achieving quality measures equivalent to those of staff gastroenterologists at a single institution. The ADRs and cecal intubation rates seen in this study are consistent with those previously identified in the literature.

Surgical residents have learned flexible endoscopy by practicing on patients in hospital settings under the strict guidance of experienced surgeons. Simulation is often used to "pretrain" novices on endoscopic skills before real clinical practice; nonetheless, the optimal method of training remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare endoscopic virtual reality and physical model simulators and their respective roles in transferring skills to the clinical environment.

At the beginning of a skills development rotation, 27 surgical postgraduate year 1 residents performed a baseline screening colonoscopy on a real patient under faculty supervision. Their performances were scored using the Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES). Subsequently, interns completed a 3-week flexible endoscopy curriculum developed at our institution. One-third of the residents were assigned to train with the GI Mentor simulator, one-third trained with the Kyoto simulator, and one-third of the residents trained using both simulators. At the end of their rotations, each postgraduate year 1 resident performed one posttest colonoscopy on a different patient and was again scored using GAGES by an experienced faculty.

A statistically significant improvement in the GAGES total score (p < 0.001) and on each of its subcomponents (p = 0.001) was observed from pretest to posttest for all groups combined. Subgroup analysis indicated that trainees in the GI Mentor or both simulators conditions showed significant improvement from pretest to posttest in terms of GAGES total score (p = 0.017 vs 0.024, respectively). This was not observed for those exclusively using the Kyoto platform (p = 0.072). Nonetheless, no single training condition was shown to be a better training modality when compared to others in terms of total GAGES score or in any of its subcomponents.

Colonoscopy simulator training with the GI Mentor platform exclusively or in combination with a physical model simulator improves skill performance in real colonoscopy cases when measured with the GAGES tool.

Virtual reality (VR) endoscopy simulators are increasingly being used in the training of novice endoscopists. There are, however, insufficient data regarding the effect of simulator training on the early learning curve of novice endoscopists.

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of novice endoscopists during colonoscopy after intensive and prolonged training on a VR endoscopy simulator.

Prospective study.

Single university medical center.

Patient-based assessment (PBA) of performance was carried out on patients routinely scheduled for colonoscopy.

Eighteen trainees without any endoscopic experience were included in the study. They were divided into 2 groups. The simulator-training program consisted of either 50 (group I) or 100 (group II) VR colonoscopies. After 10, 30, and 50 (group I) and after 20, 60, and 100 (group II) VR colonoscopies, trainees underwent both simulator-based assessment and PBA.

Cecal intubation time, colonic insertion depth, and cecal intubation rate.

Eighteen novices participated in the study. All completed VR training and assessments. The mean cecal intubation time on the SBA decreased from a baseline of 9.50 minutes to 2.20 minutes at completion of the training (P = .002). Colonic insertion depth during PBA improved from 29.4 cm to 63.7 cm (P < .001). The learning effect of simulator training ceased after 60 colonoscopies.

Single-center study, no formal sample size calculation.

VR training by using a colonoscopy simulator leads to a significant improvement in performance with the simulator itself and, more importantly, to significantly improved performances during patient-based colonoscopy. This study demonstrates the rationale for intensive simulator training in the early learning curve of novices performing colonoscopy.

The aim of this study was to create simulation-based tests with credible pass/fail standards for 2 different fidelities of colonoscopy models. Only competent practitioners should perform colonoscopy. Reliable and valid simulation-based tests could be used to establish basic competency in colonoscopy before practicing on patients. Twenty-five physicians (10 consultants with endoscopic experience and 15 fellows with very little endoscopic experience) were tested on 2 different simulator models: a virtual-reality simulator and a physical model. Tests were repeated twice on each simulator model. Metrics with discriminatory ability were identified for both modalities and reliability was determined. The contrasting-groups method was used to create pass/fail standards and the consequences of these were explored. The consultants significantly performed faster and scored higher than the fellows on both the models (P < 0.001). Reliability analysis showed Cronbach α = 0.80 and 0.87 for the virtual-reality and the physical model, respectively. The established pass/fail standards failed one of the consultants (virtual-reality simulator) and allowed one fellow to pass (physical model). The 2 tested simulations-based modalities provided reliable and valid assessments of competence in colonoscopy and credible pass/fail standards were established for both the tests. We propose to use these standards in simulation-based training programs before proceeding to supervised training on patients.

Simulation-based training (SBT) in gastrointestinal endoscopy has been increasingly adopted by gastroenterology fellowship programs. However, the effectiveness of SBT in enhancing trainee skills remains unclear. We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis of published literature on SBT in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

We performed a systematic search of multiple electronic databases for all original studies that evaluated SBT in gastrointestinal endoscopy in comparison with no intervention or alternative instructional approaches. Outcomes included skills (in a test setting), behaviors (in clinical practice), and effects on patients. We pooled effect size (ES) using random-effects meta-analysis.

From 10,903 articles, we identified 39 articles, including 21 randomized trials of SBT, enrolling 1181 participants. Compared with no intervention (n = 32 studies), SBT significantly improved endoscopic process skills in a test setting (ES, 0.79; n = 22), process behaviors in clinical practice (ES, 0.49; n = 8), time to procedure completion in both a test setting (ES, 0.79; n = 16) and clinical practice (ES, 0.75; n = 5), and patient outcomes (procedural completion and risk of major complications; ES, 0.45; n = 10). Only 5 studies evaluated the comparative effectiveness of different SBT approaches; which provided inconclusive evidence regarding feedback and simulation modalities.

Simulation-based education in gastrointestinal endoscopy is associated with improved performance in a test setting and in clinical practice, and improved patient outcomes compared with no intervention. Comparative effectiveness studies of different simulation modalities are limited.

Flexible nasolaryngoscopy is an essential skill for otolaryngology trainees to develop, but there is a lack of standardized training for this procedure. The aim of this study was to assess whether using training on a realistic human mannequin together with structured video feedback improved trainees' performance at flexible nasolaryngoscopy.

Three-armed, single-blinded, randomized controlled study.

Thirty-six junior doctors and final-year medical students were randomly allocated to one of three groups. All received a lecture and video presentation on flexible nasolaryngoscopy. One group received additional tuition using a training mannequin. The last group received mannequin training and feedback on their performance using a video recording. The trainees then undertook flexible nasolaryngoscopy on volunteers with these endoscopies recorded. Blinded observers scored the trainees on a range of objective and subjective measures. The volunteers who were also blinded to the candidates' training scored the comfort of the procedure.

Adding mannequin training showed a trend toward improvement of performance but did not reach statistical significance. Mannequin training together with video feedback produced significant performance improvement in patient comfort (P = .0065), time to reach the vocal folds (P = .017), and global ability (P = .0006). Inter-rater reliability was excellent with P < .01 in all assessments.

Simulation-based training using an anatomically correct model of the upper airway together with formalized video-assisted feedback on that training is a simple and effective way to improve endoscopy skills prior to starting flexible nasolaryngoscopy on patients.

Colonoscopy simulators that enable one to perform computer-based virtual colonoscopy now exist. However, data regarding the effectiveness of this virtual training are limited.

To determine whether virtual reality simulator training translates into improved patient-based colonoscopy performance.

The present study was a prospective controlled trial involving 18 residents between postgraduate years 2 and 4 with no previous colonoscopy experience. These residents were assigned to receive 16 h of virtual reality simulator training or no training. Both groups were evaluated on their first five patient-based colonoscopies. The primary outcome was the number of proctor 'assists' required per colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included insertion time, depth of insertion, cecal intubation rate, proctor- and nurse-rated competence, and patient-rated pain.

The simulator group required significantly fewer proctor assists than the control group (1.94 versus 3.43; P ≤ 0.001), inserted the colonoscope further unassisted (43 cm versus 24 cm; P=0.003) and there was a trend to intubate the cecum more often (26% versus 10%; P=0.06). The simulator group received higher ratings of competence from both the proctors (2.28 versus 1.88 of 5; P=0.02) and the endoscopy nurses (2.56 versus 2.05 of 5; P=0.001). There were no significant differences in proctor-, nurse- or patient-rated pain, or attention to discomfort.

Computer-based colonoscopy simulation in the initial stages of training improved novice trainees' patient-based colonoscopy performance.

A systematic review to determine whether skills acquired through simulation-based training transfer to the operating room for the procedures of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopy.

Simulation-based training assumes that skills are directly transferable to the operation room, but only a few studies have investigated the effect of simulation-based training on surgical performance.

A systematic search strategy that was used in 2006 was updated to retrieve relevant studies. Inclusion of articles was determined using a predetermined protocol, independent assessment by 2 reviewers, and a final consensus decision.

Seventeen randomized controlled trials and 3 nonrandomized comparative studies were included in this review. In most cases, simulation-based training was in addition to patient-based training programs. Only 2 studies directly compared simulation-based training in isolation with patient-based training. For laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 10 studies) and endoscopy (n = 10 studies), participants who reached simulation-based skills proficiency before undergoing patient-based assessment performed with higher global assessment scores and fewer errors in the operating room than their counterparts who did not receive simulation training. Not all parameters measured were improved. Two of the endoscopic studies compared simulation-based training in isolation with patient-based training with different results: for sigmoidoscopy, patient-based training was more effective, whereas for colonoscopy, simulation-based training was equally effective.

Skills acquired by simulation-based training seem to be transferable to the operative setting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and endoscopy. Future research will strengthen these conclusions by evaluating predetermined competency levels on the same simulators and using objective validated global rating scales to measure operative performance.

Advances in virtual endoscopy simulators have paralleled an interest in medical simulation for gastrointestinal endoscopy training.

The primary objective was to determine whether the virtual endoscopy simulator training could improve the performance of novices.

A systematic review.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared virtual endoscopy simulator training with bedside teaching or any other intervention for novices were collected.

Novice endoscopists.

The PRISMA statement was followed during the course of the research. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect were searched (up to July 2013). Data extraction and assessment were independently performed.

Independent procedure completion, total procedure time and required assistance.

Fifteen studies (n = 354) were eligible for inclusion: 9 studies designed for colonoscopy training, 6 for gastroscopy training. For gastroscopy training, procedure completed independently was reported in 87.7% of participants in simulator training group compared to 70.0% of participants in control group (1 study; 22 participants; RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.13-1.39; P<0.0001). For colonoscopy training, procedure completed independently was reported in 89.3% of participants in simulator training group compared to 88.9% of participants in control group (7 study; 163 participants; RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.88-1.37; P = 0.41; I(2) = 85%).

The included studies are quite in-homogeneous with respect to training schedule and procedure.

Virtual endoscopy simulator training might be effective for gastroscopy, but so far no data is available to support this for colonoscopy.

The use of simulators as educational tools for medical procedures is spreading rapidly and many efforts have been made for their implementation in gastrointestinal endoscopy training. Endoscopy simulation training has been suggested for ascertaining patient safety while positively influencing the trainees' learning curve. Virtual simulators are the most promising tool among all available types of simulators. These integrated modalities offer a human-like endoscopy experience by combining virtual images of the gastrointestinal tract and haptic realism with using a customized endoscope. From their first steps in the 1980s until today, research involving virtual endoscopic simulators can be divided in two categories: investigation of the impact of virtual simulator training in acquiring endoscopy skills and measuring competence. Emphasis should also be given to the financial impact of their implementation in endoscopy, including the cost of these state-of-the-art simulators and the potential economic benefits from their usage. Advances in technology will contribute to the upgrade of existing models and the development of new ones; while further research should be carried out to discover new fields of application.

Simulation, if appropriately integrated into surgical training, may provide a time efficient, cost effective and safe method of training. The use of simulation in urology training is supported by a growing evidence base for its use, leading many authors to call for it to be integrated into the curriculum. There is growing evidence for the utilisation of part task (technical skills) simulators to shorten the learning curve in an environment that does not compromise patient safety. There is also evidence that non-technical skills affect patient outcomes in the operating room and that high fidelity team based simulation training can improve non-technical skills and surgical team performance. This evidence has strengthened the argument of surgical educators who feel that simulation should be formally incorporated into the urology training curriculum to develop both technical and non-technical skills with the aim of optimising performance and patient safety.

Optimization of training and teaching methods in colonoscopy at all levels of experience is critical to ensure consistent high-quality procedures in practice. Competency in colonoscopy may not be achieved until more than 250 colonoscopies are performed by trainees. Such tools as computer-based endoscopic simulators can aid in accelerating the early phases of training in colonoscopy, and magnetic endoscopic imaging technology can guide the position of the colonoscope and aid with loop reduction. Periodic feedback and retraining experienced endoscopists can improve the detection of colonic lesions.