Introduction

EUS is a relatively new diagnostic technique, for which enormous improvements have been made. Recently, EUS was developed into a minimally invasive technique and applied in the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases. However, improvements in the conventional training pattern of EUS are needed urgently.

Aims & Methods

in this study, we compared the results achieved after use of clinical practice training patterns combined with or without simulator training and evaluated the effectiveness of simulator use in EUS training.
The trainees were randomly divided into two groups: the experimental group was trained with both clinical practice and simulator training system and the control group was only trained through clinical practice. After 1 month of training, trainees of both groups were tested with an established technical evaluation procedure that aimed to assess trainees’ ability to examine the normal anatomical structure. Then, trainees in the experimental group completed a questionnaire.

Results

In our research study, we first divided the 18 trainees into two groups: experienced group and inexperienced group based on their endoscopic skills. Then, trainees from each group were randomly assigned to the experimental group and the control group. There were no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of gender, age, or endoscopic skills of trainees [P > 0.05]. After completing the training program, the trainees were tested with an established assessment procedure, which included a written test. The mean test score of trainees in the experimental group (64.53 ± 4.91) was significantly greater than that of the control group (60.09 ± 5.49; P = 0.028).
We performed Pearson correlation analysis to determine the correlation between the test score of individuals in the experimental group and the frequency of simulator use. The Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to be 0.097, which indicates that the individual test score may be positively correlated with the frequency of simulator use in the experimental group.
Finally, all the trainees of the experimental group were asked to finish a questionnaire survey about the simulator training program. All trainees gave positive feedback to questions pertaining to the reasonability of the simulator, the complexity of operative skills, and the operative similarity between the simulator and EUS. Moreover, the self-confidence of trainees was enhanced for EUS operation. Compared to the pretraining scores in the experimental group, the trainees’ self-confidence had improved significantly in the overall mean score after completing the training (6.93–7.67, P = 0.405)

Conclusion

Our study confirmed that use of a simulator can promote the effectiveness of a EUS training program. Trainees who were taught to operate on a simulator showed better operative skills while performing EUS in clinical practice. Moreover, after use of a simulator, their self-confidence also increased. Trainees were able to successfully identify the anatomical structures of the pancreatobiliary system, which were revealed by ultrasonoscopy. Moreover, our research study provides some valuable experience and constructive instructions that need to be included in the standardized EUS training program. In our future work, we hope to design a more comprehensive training procedure to improve the effectiveness of our EUS training program.