Grover, Samir C.

Abstract Background Training with virtual reality (VR) simulation is increasingly used for health professions training to allow novices to practice in a learner-centered, risk-free environment. This review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of VR simulation training in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Aims To determine whether virtual reality simulation training can supplement and/or replace early conventional endoscopy training in diagnostic endoscopy for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. Methods We searched 17 databases from inception until October 18, 2023. We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared VR simulation training with no training, conventional training, another form of simulation training, or an alternative method of VR training. We screened and abstracted data through Cochrane methodology. The primary outcome was composite score of competency. Secondary outcomes were procedure completion, procedure time, adverse events, patient discomfort, global rating of competency, and mucosal visualization. We calculated risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Results We included 20 trials (500 participants; 3975 endoscopic procedures). There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of VR training on composite score of competency compared to no training or conventional training. VR training was advantageous over no training based for independent procedure completion (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.26; moderate certainty evidence), overall rating of performance (mean difference [MD] 0.45, 95 %CI 0.15 - 0.75, very low certainty evidence), and mucosal visualization (MD 0.60, 95 %CI 0.20 - 1.00, very low certainty evidence). VR training resulted in fewer independent procedure completions compared to conventional training (RR = 0.45, 95 %CI 0.27 - 0.74, low certainty evidence). We found no differences between VR training and no training or conventional training for other outcomes. Based on qualitative analysis, we found no significant differences between VR training and other forms of simulation training. VR curricula based in educational theory provided benefit with respect to composite score of competency, compared with unstructured curricula. Based on qualitative analysis, we found no significant differences between VR training and other forms of simulation training. VR curricula based in educational theory provided benefit with respect to composite score of competency, compared with unstructured curricula. Conclusions VR simulation training in endoscopy can supplement conventional endoscopy training and provides benefit compared to no training. Risk of bias summary Funding Agencies None

Abstract Background Real-time endoscopic optical diagnosis involves detailed visualization of the digestive mucosal and microvascular pattern, allowing for prediction of histology. This is advantageous as it can guide endoscopic resection decisions, surgical referrals and provide cost savings to histopathology. There is, however, no standardized or widely implemented curriculum for endoscopists or trainees to learn optical diagnosis skills. Aims To evaluate the impact of a course for the optical diagnosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), early gastric cancer (EGC), Barrett’s esophagus (BE), and colorectal polyps Methods 19 gastroenterology trainees were invited to the 2-day course in Kingston, Canada. Number of procedures previously performed was recorded. The impact of the course on lesion diagnosis accuracy was evaluated using a pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test administered 6 weeks after the course. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to compare the mean score (%) between the three tests. Results 13 trainees completed all the tests (Table 1). Mean score % values for the overall tests and test scores for esophageal, gastric, and colon lesions were summarized on Table 1. The repeated measures ANOVA determined that the mean score % had a statistically significant difference between the three tests (F (2,24)=5.63, P=0.01). Pairwise comparisons revealed that there was a statistically significant increase in mean scores between pre- and post-tests (13.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) of 4.36 to 23.33), p<0.01) with no significant difference between post and delayed post-tests (8.46 (95% CI of -0.12 to 17.04), p>0.05) (Figure 1). The mean correct % from the delayed post-test was higher than the pre-test but there was no statistical significance (5.39 (95% CI of -3.72 to 14.49), p>0.05). Conclusions This novel optical diagnosis course improved trainee accuracy in diagnosing ESCC, EGC, BE and colorectal polyps. Learning retention was evident, with no significant score difference between immediate and delayed post-tests. This study was limited by the low sample size and low number of test items. Further investigation is required to validate the course for international trainees and explore its clinical transferability. Demography and Mean Score % Figure 1. Mean score %. (*) denotes p<0.05. Funding Agencies None

INTRODUCTION: The performance of a high quality esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is dependent on the mucosal cleanliness. Recently, the Polprep: Effective Assessment of Cleanliness in EGD (PEACE) scale was created to assess the degree of mucosal cleanliness during EGD. The aim of this study was to validate this scoring system in a cohort of international endoscopists. METHODS: In total, 39 EGD videos, with different degrees of mucosal cleanliness were retrieved from a previously conducted prospective trial. All experts rated the cleanliness of the mucosa on each video using the PEACE scale. To evaluate agreement of all scores (0–3), intraclass correlation coefficient 2.1 was used. The agreement on adequate (scores 2 and 3) and inadequate (scores 0 and 1) cleanliness was assessed using kappa values. RESULTS: Videos evaluating esophagus, stomach, and duodenum cleanliness were reviewed by 16 endoscopists. The PEACE scores demonstrated good agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.82, 95% CI 0.75–0.89), especially for esophagus (0.84; 95% CI 0.71–0.95) and stomach (0.81; 95% CI 0.69–0.91), while agreement was moderate for the duodenum (0.69; 95% CI 0.51–0.87). The agreement was similar between Eastern (0.86; 95% CI 0.79–0.92) and Western experts (0.80; 95% CI 0.72–0.88). Similarly, agreement regarding adequate cleanliness was comparable between Eastern (0.70; 95% CI 0.55–0.85) and Western (0.74; 95% CI 0.64–0.84) endoscopists being overall 0.75 (95% CI 0.65–0.85). DISCUSSION: The PEACE scoring system is a simple and reliable scale to assess the cleanliness during EGD. The score is now validated among international experts with high concordance, justifying its use in clinical practice.

Abstract Background and study aims Use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy is an essential aid in advanced endoscopic interventions. However, it also raises concerns about radiation exposure. This study aimed to develop consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, prioritizing the safety and well-being of healthcare workers and patients. Methods A modified Delphi approach was employed to achieve consensus over three rounds of surveys. Proposed statements were generated in Round 1. In the second round, panelists rated potential statements on a 5-point scale, with consensus defined as ≥80% agreement. Statements were subsequently prioritized in Round 3, using a 1 (lowest priority) to 10 (highest priority) scale. Results Forty-six experts participated, consisting of 34 therapeutic endoscopists and 12 endoscopy nurses from six continents, with an overall 45.6% female representation (n = 21). Forty-three item statements were generated in the first round. Of these, 31 statements achieved consensus after the second round. These statements were categorized into General Considerations (n = 6), Education (n = 10), Pregnancy (n = 4), Family Planning (n = 2), Patient Safety (n = 4), and Staff Safety (n = 5). In the third round, accepted statements received mean priority scores ranging from 7.28 to 9.36, with 87.2% of statements rated as very high priority (mean score ≥ 9). Conclusions This study presents consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, addressing the well-being of healthcare workers and patients. These consensus-based statements aim to mitigate risks associated with radiation exposure while maintaining benefits of fluoroscopy, ultimately promoting a culture of safety in healthcare settings.