Dataset Information

Training in endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection: Face, content and expert validity of the live porcine model.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection are demanding procedures. This study aims to establish face, content and expert validity of the live porcine model in performing endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, complication management and to assess it as a training tool.

Material and methods

Tutors and trainees participating in live porcine model endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection workshops filled out a questionnaire regarding the realism of the model compared to human setting and its role as a learning tool. A 10-point Likert scale was used.

Results

Ninety-one endoscopists (13 tutors; 78 trainees) were involved in four workshops. Median global classifications for the realism of the life porcine model ranged between 7.0-8.0 (interquartile range 5.0-9.0). Procedures resembled human cases with a median of 9.0 (8.0-9.0) for oesophageal multiband endoscopic mucosal resection; 8.5 (8.0-9.0) for oesophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection; 9.0 (8.0-10.0) for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection; and 9.0 (8.5-9.75 and 8.0-9.69) for complication detection and management. The animal model as a learning tool had median scores of 9.0 (7.0-10.0) considering how procedures are performed; 9.0-9.5 (8.0-10.0) for usefulness for beginners; and 9.0-10.0 (5.0-10.0) regarding it a prerequisite.

Conclusions

Training in a live porcine model was considered very realistic compared to the human setting and was highly appreciated as a learning tool. This is the first study to establish face, content and expert validity of the live porcine model in performing multiband endoscopic mucosal resection, oesophageal and gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. The validation of this model provides the rationale to incorporate it into formal teaching programmes.

SUBMITTER: Kuttner-Magalhaes R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5987272 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Training in endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection: Face, content and expert validity of the live porcine model.

Küttner-Magalhães Ricardo R Dinis-Ribeiro Mário M Bruno Marco J MJ Marcos-Pinto Ricardo R Rolanda Carla C Koch Arjun D AD

United European gastroenterology journal 20171110 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection are demanding procedures. This study aims to establish face, content and expert validity of the live porcine model in performing endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, complication management and to assess it as a training tool.<h4>Material and methods</h4>Tutors and trainees participating in live porcine model endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection workshops ...[more]

PMID: 29881610

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the treatment effects of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early gastric cancer (EGC).DesignMeta-analysis.MethodsWe systematically searched three electronic databases, including PubMed, EmBase and the Cochrane library for studies published with inception to January 2018. The eligible studies should be evaluated for the efficacy and safety of ESD versus EMR for patients with EGC. The summary ORs and standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs were employed as effect estimates. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of single study on overall analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed for investigated outcomes to evaluate the treatment effects of ESD versus EMR for patients with EGC with specific subsets.ResultsEighteen studies, with a total of 6723 patients with EGC, were included in final analysis. The summary ORs indicated that patients with EGC who received ESD were associated with an increased incidence of en bloc resection (OR: 9.00; 95% CI: 6.66 to 12.17; p<0.001), complete resection (OR: 8.43; 95% CI: 5.04 to 14.09; p<0.001) and curative resection (OR: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.85 to 4.61; p<0.001) when compared with EMR. Furthermore, ESD was associated with lower risk of local recurrence (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.34; p<0.001). In addition, there was no significant difference between ESD and EMR for the risk of bleeding (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.80; p=0.203). Though, ESD was correlated with greater risk of perforation (OR: 2.55; 95% CI: 1.48 to 4.39; p=0.001), and longer operation time (SMD: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.13 to 2.10; p=0.026) as compared with EMR. Additionally, several different features observed in included studies and patients could bias the effectiveness of ESD versus EMR in patients with EGC.ConclusionsESD is superior than EMR for en bloc resection, complete resection, curative resection and local recurrence, while it increased perforation risk and longer operation time.

Dataset Information

Training in endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection: Face, content and expert validity of the live porcine model.

Introduction

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Training in endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection: Face, content and expert validity of the live porcine model.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets